Accession to the EU is expected to bring about changes in migratory routes
and destinations, as well as societal changes in the future EU member states.
How do new migration trends affect the local societies of these countries?
How is the integration of migrants possible in societies marked mostly by
emigration throughout the 1990ies? Which approaches do governments
envisage in the different countries? Are they becoming countries of
immigration – what can be expected after May 2004?
This booklet is part of a product of comprehensive research and analysis
of migration trends in each of six participating EU accession countries.
The research project has been supported by the European Commission,
DG Employment and Social Affairs, under the European Social Fund budget
line “Analysis of and research on the social situation, demography and
the family” and has been managed by IOM Vienna.
Under the title “Migration Trends in Selected Applicant Countries”, the
following volumes are available:
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
I – Bulgaria: The Social Impact of Seasonal Migration.
II – The Czech Republic: The Times They Are A-Changin.
III – Poland: Dilemmas of a Sending and Receiving Country.
IV – Romania: More ‘Out’ than ‘In’ at the Crossroads between
Europe and the Balkans.
Volume V – Slovakia: An Acceleration of Challenges for Society.
Volume VI – Slovenia: The perspective of a Country on the ‘Schengen
Periphery’.
Migration Trends
in
Selected Applicant Countries
Migration Trends
Sharing Experience…
Volume II – The Czech Republic
cover CZ qx II 15/1/04 12:26 Page 1
Volume II – The Czech Republic
The Times They Are A-Changin
IOM
The reader may expect comprehensive information on the situation of
migrants both, in and out of the countries, and the countries’ migration
management approaches, with the main purpose to illustrate the impact of
migration trends on the local society and the social situation in the country.
European Commission Project:
“Sharing Experience: Migration Trends in Selected Applicant
Countries and Lessons Learned from the ‘New Countries
of Immigration‘ in the EU and Austria”
VOLUME II – Czech Republic
“The Times They Are A-Changing”
Dušan Drbohlav
Charles University, Faculty of Science,
Department of Social Geography and Regional Development
This country report on Migration Trends in the Czech Republic forms part of a
publication series of six volumes, which have evolved under the roof of the European
Commission funded project “Sharing Experience: Migration Trends in Selected Applicant
Countries and Lessons Learned from the ‘New Countries of Immigration’ in the EU and
Austria” managed by the International Organization for Migration Mission with Regional
Functions for Central Europe in Vienna, Austria.
Publisher:
Project co-ordinator:
Scientific co-ordinator:
International Organization for Migration
Pier Rossi-Longhi
Martin Kunze
IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an
intergovernmental body, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to: assist in meeting the operational
challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development
through migration; and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants.
International Organization for Migration
Nibelungengasse 13/4
1010 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-5853322-0
Fax: +43-1-5853322-30
Email: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.iomvienna.at
Opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
International Organization for Migration or of the European Commission.
ISBN 92-9068-182-9
© 2004 International Organization for Migration
III
PREFACE
Migration to the EU
Migration to the European Union continues to be a disputed issue throughout Europe.
Starting in the 1960s it began with the recruitment of migrant workers by some Western
European countries and through family reunification in the 1970s, the process then
continued with most Western European countries successively becoming countries of
immigration. This has not necessarily been an intended process, but has become a fact
in the better-off countries of the EU.
New EU members in the north and in the south have seen their immigration figures rise
after accession, partly as a result of related increased economic growth. Countries like
Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy or Greece – all situated on the EU periphery, where
emigration had previously prevailed – had to adapt quickly to the new situation in the
course of the 1990s. In terms of policy, the process suffered from a lack of experience,
so the management of the flows was often not ideal and local societies were taken by
surprise to a certain degree.
The surge in immigration has mainly been fed by people seeking protection from the
armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and by the fall of the iron curtain, which has
allowed citizens of Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) to move. They
made use of this possibility in direction of the prospering EU. Policy developments,
notably linked to freedom of movement and to irregular migration, have carefully been
described and analysed in two previous publications jointly produced by IOM and
ICMPD: “Migration in Central and Eastern Europe. 1999 Review” and “New Challenges for
Migration Policy in Central and Eastern Europe”.
With the accession of 10 new member states to the EU in May 2004 (and two more in
2007), these countries are likely to follow the path of the previous EU accession
countries and, in turn, become countries of immigration. With increased global mobility
and a growing number of severe conflicts and wars, people seeking shelter from Africa
and Asia have become a growing source of migrants in recent years. Their paths of
migration are directed to the EU and often lead through the accession countries. In this
process, in spite of fortified border protection and the “safe third countries” rule, which
has become a standard in the states of the EU, accession countries are increasingly
becoming target countries of migration. For their societies, this means a rapid change
from countries almost without migration via strong emigration to more immigration in
the future. This scenario requires preparation and careful planning. On the other hand
and on the background of demographic trends, this may be a rather desirable change.
According to projections of the EC, the population of all accession countries in Central
and Eastern Europe has a tendency to decrease, a fact likely to pose significant
problems to economy and society in the future. Compared to Western European
countries, where the established migration chains will soften the population losses for
a longer period, the future eastern border countries of the EU will increasingly face this
problem no later than 2010.
In relation to this, one very important characteristic of globalisation, that is especially
relevant when talking about migration, is that causes and effects can happen in
completely different parts of the world. This simple fact is even more significant if one
comes to think that the interdependency of migration to social economic or political
IV
factors is extremely high. The globalisation of economy and politics, the continuos
merging of cultural factors and the shortening of distances by the availability of quick
and cheap transportation, makes regular migration always hard to isolate as a regional
phenomenon or to control by national means. We have come to understand that
Migration has its own internal dynamics. These particular dynamics – sensitive of
course to external factors –can be maybe best compared with what liberals would
describe as a marketplace. A place, where reality is the clash product of a demand and
an offer, and where intervention can only be done with observance to these
mechanisms. Arbitrary intervention can and does usually lead to unwanted results.
Before we attempt to develop this concept, let us enumerate briefly three more
assumptions that are relevant for these internal dynamics, when discussing the
marketplace approach: 1. First of all, the quantitative (as opposed to qualitative) degree
of migratory movements always depends on the extent to which restrictive actions have
hindered the migration process previously. Recent history of the continent has
illustrated significantly enough this statement and comparing 1980 and 1990 statistics
gives you a clear picture. 2. Very much related to the above assumption, one could
safely talk about fluctuating cycles in migration, with ascending lines, peaks and
regressions. In Europe, most of the Candidate Countries have passed their peaks in
producing migration in the mid-90s. 3. Migration, especially the one motivated
economically, is more sensitive to pull than to push factors. This assumption is very
much relevant in Europe today, and it radically contradicts whoever states that the
European Union has little to offer to migrants. The fact is that there are jobs available in
the Union today, particularly in certain areas of the labour market. Migrants will satisfy
this demand within or outside a regulated framework. Further it might very well be that
legislators and policy maker who want to intervene in a certain manner on this
marketplace would only be able to succeed by working precisely at these pull-factors.
The way some countries do it – maybe the most relevant are the US and Canada –
proving that they have understood this reality by attracting qualified migrants from all
over the world, becoming preferred destinations even for people who are not that
dependent on push factors in their own countries. And the moment is not far when
competition between European and non-European destinations for qualified migrants
may have a much more decisive impact on trends then the aforementioned
demographic changes. Having taken into account these assumptions and coming back
to the migration marketplace, maybe the first corollary of this analogy is the fact that as
long as migration happens – with no regard to the policy of the state – it is proof enough
that migrants are actually needed. As long as the movements are driven by labour
related issues, the interior dynamics of migration, as said earlier, will always take
precedence, no matter if the destination state will restrict it or not. The difference is only
in the degree of legality within which the economic activities of the migrants (usually
labour) will happen. In Europe this is both true in the member states of the EU and will
be progressively more and more true in the Candidate Countries as they approach
accession.
As we shift towards the particular European dimension of the marketplace analogy, one
would say that state intervention has to be always in agreement with the intrinsic state
of the determinant factors at the moment of intervention, and should ideally be justified
by an unusual imbalance of the migratory “market”. That means that when a state
designs its policy on migration or other way to control migratory movements such
V
intervention has to be in line with current migration realities and deal with them from
within. But let us develop this. It is far from our intention to say that because of such a
marketplace approach the best way to go around migration is an absolute laissez-faire,
and it is also far from our intention to say that the Candidate Countries or the European
Union should open their borders to whatever waves of migrants might want to enter.
Like on every marketplace in our complex times, intervention might not only be
legitimate and necessary but it usually is to the overall benefice. The only care to be
taken when designing state intervention is that it should be in tune with the dynamics
of the phenomenon, observing migration also in the context of supply and demand. And
in this sense, keeping always with the market concept, let us not un-wantingly increase
illegal employment nor unnecessarily expand the market share for traffickers and
smugglers. Because to forget that most markets, have a black-market, may hinder the
overall result that we were aiming for in the first place. The new European common
policy proposal on immigration seems to have incorporated such interventions
particularly by refining its employment strategy, but also by reviewing the impact of an
ageing population on security and pensions and by making training more responsive to
the market needs. A communication on illegal immigration has also been released, and
the Candidate Countries will have to align themselves to this common policy probably
before accession.
However if one looks at the entire accession negotiations in the field of Migration, the
two most striking common features in all these countries seem to be: 1. Sometimes
technical negotiations for accession were underestimated in favour of the political
negotiations and 2. Migration realities were too rarely regarded in perspective. First, on
the technical question. Beyond the status of a formal condition for enlargement (as
defined in 1993 at the European Council in Copenhagen), technical criteria are of the
utmost importance for the union, but especially for the country in question. No doubt
that political negotiations are important and more than that, commitment to democratic
values backed up by political commitment to the enlargement process are crucial
factors. But it would be a mistake to underestimate the role of technical capacity. On the
long term, political-only driven efforts will prove to be counterproductive, while
technical efforts, resulting in a better infrastructure tailored to cope with European
challenges will prove its benefices in facing very close future situations. Higher
flexibility in implementing European legislation, higher efficiency in providing security
to individuals, higher response of the administrative structures to fast changes,
managing migration and other challenges and not least a better understanding – at all
government levels – of the way the different states in the European Union work for a
common interest are just some few arguments for the technical side of negotiations for
enlargement. But in the end we face political and technical interdependency anyway:
Accession may be a priority political objective, but migration management should not
be too far behind, not least because it is the one topic in todayęs Europe that the
electorate does not seem to be ignoring. In what regards the second common feature,
the lack of perspective in approaching migration, the most common illustration of it is a
state that would not diligently try to cope with the Acquis in the area of migration for
the apparent (and obvious) reason that there were not too many migration challenges
in that particular state. In a time magnified frame, that statement is true. Most of the
candidate countries are not (yet) particular destinations for migrants (especially
economic migrants), and when such phenomenon occurs it is typically insignificant and
anyway just a “pit-stop”, a transit period in the migrant’s route towards the final
destination (with the exception of the Czech Republic, where the percentage of
VI
foreigners has already reached 2%). But upon accession this state of fact will change
radically: as part of the Union the candidate countries will find themselves becoming
very attractive for migrants over night, and not by accident: the membership in the
Union’s political processes will make these countries safer, the flow of capital and the
development of the economic markets will increase the demand for labour and finally,
the social welfare system will probably become more friendly.
All these changes will drive migration flows towards these countries, and this is the
perspective that legislators and administrations have to keep in mind when designing
their migration policy and when aligning themselves to the Migration Acquis. Moreover,
adopting the Acquis alone, by a simple legislative process will never be enough, without
the building of administrative capacity to enforce the EU framework legislation and to
react in symphony to the challenges of the Union the process will be far from effective.
What we all have to understand is that membership in the Union brings along a lot of
advantages, in terms of strengthening the economy, consolidating democratic processes
and providing for safety and security. But these advantages come along with huge
responsibilities, because the way one single state deals with certain challenges – such
as migration – is not only relevant for that state alone but for the whole union. And if
the capacity of that state to face such challenges is lacking then there are high chances
that completed enlargement may turn into weighty political embarrassment when the
same state finds itself in the impossibility to strive for the values of the Union in
undeniably visible situations.
Migration in the Candidate Countries is on its way to change in quantitative and
qualitative presence, and these changes – in the good practice of globalisation trends –
are both causes and effects of so many and complex other processes, of which the
enlargement of the European Union is certainly the most revolutionary. In this context
migration policies have to be carefully designed to lead eventually to migrants’
economic and cultural integration in an extended area of freedom security and justice.
An area which must consistently strive to balance rights and responsibilities of
migrants. A balance that can only function when legal transposition is matched with
both administrative and enforcement capacity. It is therefore high time to prepare the
process, which must go beyond legislation and technical co-operation. Alongside
emigration and established temporary migration to the west, the societies in the
accession states have to be prepared for a new challenge to their cohesion: foreigners
in their cities, often right in their neighbourhood, maybe competing for their jobs. Let us
avoid emergency management and rather, in a timely fashion, strive for long term
orderly migration supported by functional integration measures in tune with the host
societies.
Research Methodology
What began as a classical multiple country case study, later developed in a comparative
study with the aim of creating a certain typology distinguishing between those countries
where there is immigration and those countries where there is emigration. What also
emerged was the need to distinguish between countries where permanent emigration is
prevailed upon by circulatory emigration. Additionally a great deal of attention needed
to be paid to the phenomena of transit immigration, temporary immigration and
permanent settlement immigration. Some countries used to regard their emigrants to
the EU only as a source of remittances. In the 90s this pattern changed and now the
same emigrants are looked at as the ones who can potentially build transnational
VII
connectivity. The question of whether this trend is also spilling over to the accession
countries was a further element which needed to be assessed. What also needed
appropriate attention is the issue of nationality and naturalization. Where usually
nationality has been closely related to ethnic background, the new realities may create
revised views and policies on this matter. With more and more people wanting to be
naturalized, it is clear that the relevant laws and policies, when less than adequate, will
bear the strain. This point has also been analyzed.
In fact this booklet is part of a product of comprehensive research and analysis of
migration trends in each of six participating EU accession countries: Poland, the Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria. The research project has been
supported by the European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs, under the
European Social Fund budget line “Analysis of and research on the social situation,
demography and the family” and was managed by IOM Vienna.
Under the title “Migration Trends in Selected EU Applicant Countries”, the following
volumes are available:
Volume I – Bulgaria. The Social Impact of Seasonal Migration.
Volume II – The Czech Republic. The Times They Are A-Changin.
Volume III – Poland. Dilemmas of a Sending and Receiving Country.
Volume IV – Romania. More ‘Out’ than ‘In’ at the Crossroads between Europe and the
Balkans.
Volume V – Slovakia. An Acceleration of Challenges for Society.
Volume VI – Slovenia. The perspective of a Country on the ‘Schengen Periphery’.
Within the project, applied research enhancing the EU knowledge basis on migration in
candidate countries to the Union has been sought. Although building on the acquired
knowledge, it is no continuation of the previous IOM / ICMPD research, but is inscribed
in a different logic. The particular interest here was to find out more about the effects of
migration on the countries’ societies. For this purpose, a mixed methodology was
conceived, taking into account the different levels of migration research in the
participating countries. It has been applied and can be found in each of the six country
reports as well as in the overview.
The research was developed with an attempt to align the research process as far as
possible. This field of research being new for the participating countries, two major
disadvantages had to be faced: little research and a low number of researchers to draw
upon as well as scarce data availability. However statistics and literature was found to
be better in those countries which have already experienced in-migration to a certain
degree (the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, to a lesser degree also Slovakia), whereas
Bulgaria and Romania were still greatly lacking both research and statistical
apprehension of the phenomenon.
As a consequence, the methodology has been elaborated in three steps, which
accompanied the entire research process: Literature analysis, interviews and
recommendations. In fact data has systematically been completed by interviews with
officials, experts, and migrants themselves or their associations, depending on the gaps
VIII
in literature and statistics. Collaboration of the researchers with the respective IOM
country missions has facilitated this process. For each of the countries, the interviews
form the added value of the reports. Hitherto undocumented aspects of migration
phenomena in the accession countries become perceivable for the first time, and
besides, analysed in a systematic manner.
The research is made pertinent by analysis weighing the information against credibility
and by the elaboration of conclusions to each chapter of the research.
Recommendations to different stakeholders are formulated at the end of the text for
optimal usability.
Through its form and result, the project “Sharing Experience: Migration Trends in
Selected Applicant Countries and Lessons Learned from the ‘New Countries of
Immigration‘ in the EU and Austria” hopes to contribute to EU migration research and
policy at the time of the expansion in May 2004 and beyond.
The reader may expect comprehensive information on the situation of migrants both, in
and out of the countries, and the countries’ migration management approaches, with
the main purpose to illustrate the impact of migration trends on the local society and
the social situation in the country.
International Organization for Migration
Vienna, Autumn 2003
1
Acknowledgements
The author greatly appreciates the assistance of Lucie Gladišová (IOM Prague)
for interviewing some of the experts and for organisational and technical assistance.
Also, the author would like to thank Havila Unrein and Martin Kunze
for polishing the English version of this text.
2
Contents:
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Migration and integration realities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Migration/integration policies and practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Brief Historical Overview (1945 – 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Overall Migration Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1. Direction and size of movements – basic parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Motivation, a legal status and duration of stay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3. Gender and age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 The city of Prague – a strong pole of attractiveness for migrants . . . . . . . . . .
2.5. Future migration stocks and flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Factors Contributing to Migration Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1. “Push” and “pull” factors and related labour market issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2. Asylum seekers and other forms of protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3. Family and other informal links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4. Ethnic immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5. Irregular migration, including trafficking and smuggling
in human beings; irregular labour immigration
and the evasion of migratory legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Impact of migration movements on the Czech society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1. Impact of labour and economic migration, its relation to other aspects . . . .
4.2. Economic effects of migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3. Non-economic effects of migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4. Illegal employment and exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5. Public opinion and perception of migrants and migration;
discrimination, xenophobia and other forms of violence
against migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Migration policy, legislation and procedures – present situation
and planned migration management strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1. Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2. Stay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3. Return, detention and expulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III
1
2
4
4
7
8
11
13
13
23
26
36
39
40
42
42
47
48
49
50
55
56
56
62
62
64
68
73
75
77
80
84
3
5.4. Other area matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6. Integration policies and practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.1. Particular geographic/administrative concentrations of migrants . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.2. Available reception assistance programmes for migrants;
specific (re)integration programmes and integration
initiatives/best practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.3. Education and other cultural programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.4. Access to health care and other social services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.5. Participation of migrants in civic and political life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.6. Public perception/opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
7. Conclusion and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.1. Overall migratory trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.1.1. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.1.2. Overall migration scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
7.1.3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.1.4. Immigrants’ population structures – social role,
education/qualification, gender, age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.1.5. Regional patterns and impact of labour and economic
migration (including its conditions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.1.6. Non-economic effects of migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.1.7. Public opinion and perception of migrants and migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.1.8. Cooperation within individual ethnic immigrant groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.2. The most urgent matters and recommendations for improvement . . . . . . . . . 109
7.2.1. Migration and integration policies and practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.2.1.1. State bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.2.1.2. NGOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.2.1.3. The EU and international organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.3. Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Appendix I: Foreign children and their integration in Czech schools
and Czech society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Appendix II: List of interviewed experts – their employer or position - with
their identification numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Appendix III: Maps and Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4
Executive summary
This study provides a relatively complex overview of what is currently (mainly between
1997 and 2001 or 20021) going on in the field of international migration and investigates
the various integration issues that immigrants face in the Czech Republic. Migratory
trends (their materialization in reality) and their conditions, the impact of migration
upon society, and questions about migration policies and practices, including policy
implications/ recommendations, are presented. The study also gives a brief look at a
specific issue: foreign children and their integration in Czech schools and Czech society
(see Appendix I).
The results presented here are based on 1) the author’s experience, 2) secondary
sources (“hard data” statistics and various studies) and 3) “soft” subjective pieces of
information collected from 30 interviewed experts2 (specialists in migration/integration
issues). Through its “added value,” this method serves to either confirm/verify or
refuse patterns and trends that have already been explained. This method also serves
to illuminate new perspectives. Experts’ opinions are always presented below in italics
and marked with the abbreviation “No.” and identification numbers (to connect them
with particular persons – see the Appendix II). For a regional and subregional overview
of the Czech Republic, please see the maps in the Appendix III.
As for some of the ascertained and presented results, let us pinpoint the following ones3:
Migration and integration reality
- Current Czech migratory trends have quickly been shifting towards those typical of the
developed Western World. These parallels concern: 1) quantitative aspects (numbers
of immigrants – “stocks and flows”); 2) the conditions of migration and, consequently,
many “mechanisms” through which migration is materialized; and 3) the nature and
the whole development of migration policies and practices. Accordingly, it has been
proven that the current migratory reality in the Czech Republic might, to some extent,
be explained by well-known migration theories, namely: the neoclassical economic
theory, the world system theory, the dual labour market theory, the network theory
and the institutional theory.
A) If necessary, some patterns from the beginning of the 1990s or even from the communist era are
mentioned, too
B) If not specified otherwise, the data concerns December 31 of the given year
C) In 1997, the Czech economy experienced severe problems on macro and micro levels. These problems
coincided with political turmoil in the Czech Republic. In the process of searching for remedies, generally
more restrictive approaches have begun to dominate all of society since then. These approaches have had
important impacts on migratory reality; for example, there is less room left in the country’s territory in which
immigrants can operate. The restrictions have also gone hand-in-hand with with the further harmonization of
Czech migratory policies and practices with those in the European Union (EU)
2
Experienced experts working in the migration field - representatives from the state sector, academic circles,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international organisations were selected and successfully
contacted (see the Appendix II)
3
For more detailed conclusions including more specific developmental trends, see the text at the end of any
chapter and a chapter 7, which is devoted to overall conclusions (this section also contains recommendations
as to what remedies might help solve existing problems)
1
5
- During the last 150 years, a trend of emigration dominated over immigration in the
territory of the current Czech Republic.
- The Czech Republic has quickly become a transit and immigration country. Since the
end of 2002, 231,608 immigrants have officially stayed in the country. 14,741 persons
were caught in 2002 while illegally trying to cross the Czech state border. Permanent
and long-term emigration of the republic’s own population, as well as short-term cross
border movements, are not large at all and it seems that they have been decreasing
over time.
- Among the source countries that supply the Czech Republic with “permanent
immigrants” and are closely linked with family reunion processes (flows a year), two
countries dominate: Slovakia and Ukraine. Vietnamese, Poles, Slovaks and Ukrainians
represent the “stock” populations and are the most important source countries of
permanent immigrants into the Czech Republic.
- The predominance of “economic migrants” coming from Slovakia and Ukraine to the
country is clearly evident. Out of the ten most important source countries, four are
countries of the former Soviet Union.
- Compared to immigrants who stay in the Czech Republic for economic and family
reasons, asylum seekers represent much smaller numbers. Ukrainian asylum seekers
comprise the most important ethnic group among asylum seekers who asked for
asylum between 1997 and 2002. Other important countries of origin are Afghanistan,
Moldova, India, Vietnam, Romania and Russia, recently also Slovakia. Also among
asylum seekers, those migrants arriving from countries of the former Soviet Union play
a very important role.
- Many of the source countries of asylum seekers are among those whose citizens were
caught trying illegally to cross the Czech state border. Representatives of some of those
countries (mainly India, China, Vietnam, Moldova, Germany and Poland) are
permanently illegally on the move through the Czech Republic.
- One could estimate the current number of irregular immigrants in the Czech Republic
(as of the very end of 2000) as somewhere between 295,000 and 335,000. Of this figure,
165,000 might be irregular immigrants active on the Czech labour market, 30,000 their
dependents and 100,000 – 140,000 transit migrants (now perhaps slightly less).
- Regarding the development of future migration processes in the Czech Republic,
existing trends could probably be extrapolated into the future. There is no reason not
to believe that, in general, the situation in the migration field (including overall scales)
will develop in the same manner as the situation in many Western European
democracies.
- Unambiguously, the most important reasons for immigration to the Czech Republic
(excluding transit migration) are economic (work and doing business) and familial. On
a more general level and from the immigrant country’s perspective, three groups of
factors play an important role when searching for strong “pulls” attracting migrants to
the Czech Republic: 1) geographical (position), 2) political and 3) economic.
- Family and informal ties play an important “supportive” role in how to get to the
country, where to stay and what to do.
- A stock of foreign students has been growing over time while new enrollments (flow)
have recently been slightly diminishing. By far the most important source country
sending students to the Czech Republic is Slovakia.
6
- Czech compatriots have not been too involved in directly transforming their mother
society since the collapse of communism.
- Currently, there are no strong “push” factors that would propel mass migration
movements of Czech citizens out of their mother country.
- One has to distinguish between two very different immigrant groups in the Czech
Republic - the “Eastern” category versus the “Western” one. Each has different roles,
different positions in the Czech labour market and dissimilar “structural
characteristics.”
- When simplifying to some extent, there is an overall trend of “feminization”
(the growth of female participation) of immigration to the Czech Republic.
- The immigrants’ age structure (all legally-residing foreigners) clearly differs from that
typical of the host, majority population. The size of foreigners in the economically
active age (15-59) is really huge (86%) whereas the youngest and oldest segments of
immigrants (1-14 and 60+) are represented by rather small numbers both in absolute
and relative terms.
- The capital city of Prague is a very important migratory destination and large numbers
of immigrants of different types concentrate here.
- There is a clear East-West gradient. The more westward one moves within the territory
of the Czech Republic, the more intense the influence of immigration.
- Immigrant ethnic groups representing neighboring countries (Slovaks, Poles, Germans
and Austrians) have, besides Prague and the Central Bohemia region, a higher
concentration in Czech/Moravian/Silesian districts bordering on their mother
countries.
- The index of dissimilarity shows that Vietnamese and Slovaks have spatial distribution
patterns most similar to the Czech majority population (by district), whereas patterns
for Chinese, Russians and Americans, especially due to their huge concentrations in
Prague, are very different.
- As in other developed immigrant countries, a presence of economic immigrants in the
Czech Republic brings with it both pros and cons for the country and for the
immigrants themselves (i.e., their omnipresent exploitation). What is obvious is that
economically motivated foreign immigration helps propel transformation processes
mainly in the urban poles of development, and this is the most important impact of
immigrants upon Czech society. In relation to economic migrants, it was also
confirmed that “compatriots’ nets” (with their supportive role) have been important
factors in attracting immigrants to and within the Czech Republic.
- Ethnic immigrant groups, in accordance with their own strategies and their specific
spatial concentration patterns, have found specific niches in the Czech labour market,
thereby reshaping its previous contours. Three ethnic immigrant groups are involved
in this process above all – Ukrainians, Vietnamese and Chinese.
- Concerning immigration vis-à-vis cultural contributions, demographic changes,
changes in the social structure and the like in the Czech Republic, there is no nationwide immigrants’ influence on these issues; it is exhibited only in some places on the
local level.
The Czech population is rather xenophobic. However, the relationship is not “linear” in
its character. When comparing the beginning of the 1990s with the beginning of the
7
2000s, the public’s perception of selected individual ethnic immigrant groups has
become more positive (except in the case of citizens of the Balkans).
- Whereas Slovaks are, out of the selected ethnic groups, by far the most popular for the
Czech majority, followed by Poles, Vietnamese and citizens of the former Soviet Union,
citizens of the Balkans and especially Roma belong to the most unpopular ones.
- Prejudice against the Roma ethnic group is a persistently recurring attitude.
- Nevertheless, the manifestation of right wing extremism, associated mainly with young
people, has been limited to small groups and has not spread through the population in
a way that could destabilise public safety in any of the Czech regions.
There is a sort of competition and even grudge inside some of the ethnic groups that is
manifested in bad relationships between associations (“old” communities, regardless of
having citizenship in the Czech Republic, versus those who “newly” immigrated –
namely, Ukrainians, Vietnamese and Arabs or Kurds).
Migration/integration policies and practices
Czech legislation on international migration almost fully corresponds to that proposed
in the EU Directives. In the late 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, more active,
systematic, and coherent approaches toward migration issues were implemented. State
integration programmes (designed mainly for refugees and compatriots) and a newlylaunched programme for recruiting educated/skilled foreign labour force are good
examples of successful and useful activities. However, there are weaknesses. These
include a too vague definition of basic principles of migration policy; inconsistencies in
approaches to building a multicultural society and combating illegal/irregular migration;
problems with the decentralization of migratory responsibilities (especially delegating
power to newly-established regions); inadequate cooperation among (and within) state
bodies, NGOs and international organisations; insufficient publication of migration
issues among the public; gaps in migration statistics; and suspicions of corruption in the
state sector (the police).
8
1. Brief Historical Overview (1945 – 1989)
International migration movements during the communist era of the Czech Republic/
Czechoslovakia were very specific. Under a regime that in many ways isolated proSoviet bloc countries vis-à-vis other worlds4, movements were far from “natural” (i.e.
natural migration activities and trends were deformed) and were, according to
legislation at the time, limited mostly to illegal emigration. The country’s trend of
emigration (rather than immigration), so typical of the previous 150 years5, continued.
However, one important change occurred: whereas economic motives (together with
the related family reunification processes) for emigration had dominated in the past
(except for a short period just before the start of the Second World War – see Cure 1994),
political (“push”) motives for emigration also became important factors under
communism. However, it does not mean that immigration did not exist. It did occur, but
mainly in the wake of the Second World War and in the form of temporary workers who
arrived as a result of intergovernmental agreements between Czechoslovakia and other
socialist countries (called “international aid cooperation” - see Boušková 1998;
Drbohlav 2003b). “Permanent immigration” to the Czech Republic was rather marginal,
except for the inflow of Slovaks (which was actually considered an internal migration
movement at the time).
For many reasons, migration data sources covering the socialist/communist epoch are
poor, because official records heavily underestimated irregular movements. Therefore,
very often one has to only rely on qualified estimates. The international migration of the
whole era may be divided into two periods.
The Aftermath of the Second World War
First there are migration movements which occurred as an aftermath of the Second
World War. Between 1945 and 1947, some 2,820,000 Germans were transferred and
expelled (in three organised and unorganised waves) from Czechoslovakia to Germany.
Thus, the number of Germans in the Czech Republic alone shrank from 3,000,000 (as of
May 1, 1945) to 180,000 (as of May 22, 1947 – Stěhování 1995). In this context, Chesnais
(1992) states, 1,570,000 Germans left the country in 1946. This exodus was only partly
compensated by immigration. During the two-year period after the war, between 80,000
and 100,000 people came back from abroad. Brouček (1998) maintains that, between
1945 and 1950, “approximately 220,000 Czechs and Slovaks returned to Czechoslovakia.
They were settled mostly in places which had belonged to the transferred Germans6”.
They were those people who had left just before or during the war and those members
of Czech compatriot families who had left their mother country earlier and had been
living abroad for a long time (e.g., reemigrants from the USSR – Volhynia above all, but
also Austria, France, Poland, Germany, Yugoslavia, etc. – Kučera 1994; Brouček 1998).
Inter alia, a strict regulation and control of their own citizens’ international movements
Between 1850 and 1914 the territory of the current Czech Republic lost about 1,600,000 inhabitants
(measured via net migration). Emigration highly dominates over immigration during the First Republic
(Czechoslovakia) as well. Between 1920 and 1939, the Czech Republic lost some 90,000 inhabitants
(measured via net migration – see Stěhování 1995)
6
Nevertheless, most of the 72,000 reemigrants from Hungary and 21,000 from Romania were Slovaks
(Brouček 1998) who settled in Slovakia
4
5
9
Brouček (1998) also points out that reemigration took place in two forms, either
individually or collectively according to institutional law. It must be stressed that
despite the state’s endeavor to bring new people from within the country to border zone
areas that were particularly hit by the expulsion of Germans (perhaps about 1,500,000
came there by 1949, partly also from Slovakia), these attempts failed. The border zone
as a whole has never reached former population numbers. Nevertheless, the migration
experience was significant, and brought about negative social and economic
consequences there. These consequences have persisted into the present period.
Emigration during socialism/communism
The second period consists of the years 1948-1989, when two important political events
took place (1948 – the communists came to power, and 1968 – occupation by the Soviet
army). One has to rely on migration estimates for this period because most of the
movements were illegal according to given legislation; however, the data suggest that
Czechoslovakia lost about 500,000 inhabitants through illegal migration and 65,000
through officially registered international migration movements (Kučera 1994). Kučera
(1994) estimates that out of this 565,000, at least three quarters emigrated from the Czech
Republic alone.7 Therefore, this information shows a loss of some 420,000 – 440,000
inhabitants; more than 10,000 a year8.
When distinguishing two sub-periods, then, the losses via illegal emigration for all of
Czechoslovakia between 1948 and 1967 represent some 255,000 (some 60,000 just
shortly after February 1948), and some 245,000 between 1968 and 1989 (some 104,000
just after the occupation – Kučera 1994).
In the 1970s and 80s, the migration loss for the Czech Republic was an estimated 30,000
– 40,000 for each decade9 (based on Kučera 1994 and Srb 1990). Reasons for this
emigration were mostly political, but there were also some economic roots. Some
people could no longer bear an anti-democratic and totalitarian regime, while others
were not pleased with their standard of living as a whole. Very often there were a lot of
factors involved in the decision-making process, which resulted in emigration for living,
working, travelling and environmental reasons, as well as others. In other words, there
existed a total disillusionment with the political climate. Emigration itself was a grave act
that often involved breaking all family ties and social networks. There was practically no
way back because emigration was a criminal offence, and could involve confiscation of
one’s possessions and sometimes persecution of relatives. Furthermore, hope for a
democratic and "prosperous" future in the country was out of sight (Drbohlav 1993).
By looking at official statistics, it is possible to deduce some basic personal
characteristics of all emigrants (Srb 1990). One can assume that most of them (about
7
It is perhaps worth mentioning the difference between an intensity of people leaving the country illegally
from the Czech Republic on the one hand, and from the Slovak Republic on the other hand. While the
ratio of the population between the two republics was more or less 2:1, the ratio of illegal emigration was
about 4:1 in 1968-1980, and something between 2 and 3:1 in favour of the Czech Republic in 1981-1989
(estimated according to the internal data sources of the former Federal Ministry of the Interior)
8
It was about one third of the natural increase (Kučera 1994). However, as Kučera (1994) also states,
between 1980 and 1989, losses through illegal emigration respesented as much as 63% of the natural
increase in the Czech Republic. In fact, since 1979 the country as a whole has lost population due to
international migration. Nevertheless, it was not reflected in official statistics
9
One can show here how official statistics differed from reality. Whereas unofficial expert estimates put
the number of emigrants from Czechoslovakia during the 1980s at about 50,000, there were officially only
25,746 emigrants (77% for Europe) between 1981 and 1989 (Marešová 1991)
10
80%) were economically active (with an average age of 35), and had often left the
country with their families (Kučera 1994). Most of them were skilled, i.e., both bluecollar workers and professionals. The ratio of men compared to women seemed to be
about 2:1.10 During the 1980s, it was clearly indicated that the metropolitan and urban
population was the main driving force behind emigration.11 For example, Prague alone
had the highest levels of illegal emigration during the 1980s (its share represented
23-29% of all emigration movements between 1984 and 1988; in relative terms it was
64-93 emigrants per 100,000 inhabitants of the given unit). Geographical position was
also an important factor; the populations of districts close to, or bordering on, the EastWest border zone (e.g., Karlovy Vary, Cheb and Sokolov) emigrated much more often
than others did. Western European countries, especially Germany, but also traditional
immigrant regions such as the USA, Canada and Australia, were targets for emigrants
from the Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia. However, one cannot uncover the truth
behind these movements simply by looking at a regional picture of official emigration.
Instead, a very specific type of emigration from the country was represented by the
outflow of ethnic Germans (“Aussiedler”). For example, between 1980 and 1989, 12,727
of them left Czechoslovakia and went back to Germany (Uhlíř 1993).
All in all, the high intensity of emigration from the Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia fits
a trend that was typical of Central/Eastern Europe in general. It is estimated that the
former socialist/communist „Eastern Europe“ lost more than 14,000,000 people to the
Western world as a result of international migration between 1950 and 1993 (Fassmann
/ Münz 1995).
Immigration during socialism/communism
One important migratory phenomenon, the mutual movement of people between the
Czech Republic and Slovakia, did not become international until 1993, when the two
independent states were established. As far as these movements are concerned, in the
first half of the 1950s there were rather huge flows from Slovakia to the Czech Republic,
altogether about 33,000 people a year (the counter flows were about 21,000 – Häufler
1984). The numbers were 16,000 and 10,300 a year for the period of 1965-1969 (Häufler
1984). Over time, this migration has been diminishing and in the 1970s and 1980s the net
migration loss for Slovakia was approximately only about 3,500 (Dzúrová / Rychtaříková
/ Drbohlav 1992).
Two waves of permanent immigrants (settlement migration) should be mentioned in
particular. As Brouček (1998) states, between 1946-1947, 12,000 Bulgarian peasants
settled in the frontier regions after the evacuation of Germans, and “in 1957 there were
10
When having a look at registered illegal emigrants from the Czech Republic between 1972 and 1989, of
the total number of emigrants, 54% were children younger than 15, 41% were 16-30 years old, 26% were 3140 years old and 9% were older than 40; 42% were blue-collar workers, 26% had finished high school, and
16% represented highly educated intelligentsi
11
The relationship was investigated between illegal emigration from the Czech Republic and various
geographical, economic, social and demographical characteristics by means of a stepwise regression
analysis in Czech districts in the period of 1981-1983. The resulting model, based on all 17 independent
variables, accounted for a substantial amount of variance (R2= 0.78, p=0.05). Thus, it explained the
causality and conditional aspects of the emigration fairly well while confirming a close relationship to the
emigration to highly urbanized areas. The variables, such as the share of those working in agriculture (the
standard regression coefficient SRC=-0.339), the share of people living in urbanized areas (SRC=0.406), the
divorce rate (SRC=0.445), the environmental („natural“) quality (SRC=-0.451), and the „centrality“
(SRC=0.174), were put into the equation (Drbohlav 1993)
11
about 4,000 construction workers settled in Most and Chomutov districts.” The second
immigrant ethnic group to settle in the country was Greek. They left Greece because of
the civil war conflict in the second half of the 1940s. “At the end of this war children and
young people were evacuated from distressed areas and some of them were
transported to Czechoslovakia” (Brouček 1998). As this author further continues,
between 1949 and 1950, Czechoslovakia accepted about 12,000 Greeks as political
refugees. They were initially located in frontier regions in northern Moravia, however
they moved out of this region (while remaining within the country) continuously (see
also Uherek 2003).
Besides those newcomers who settled in the country, there were also temporary foreign
workers in the Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia. While only very limited numbers of
Czechs worked abroad during the communist era, relatively significant numbers of
foreigners worked in Czech Republic – mainly during the 1970s and 1980s. These
temporary workers arrived primarily from Poland, Vietnam12, Hungary, Cuba, Mongolia,
Angola and Korea. They gained skills and work experience in Czechoslovakia and filled
gaps in the Czech labour market (e.g. in food-processing, textiles, shoe and glass
industries, machinery, mining, metallurgy and agriculture). The system of recruiting
students, apprentices, and workers functioned via intergovernmental agreements and,
to a much smaller extent, through individual contracts (mainly with workers from
Poland and Yugoslavia). This immigration, as many other issues within the communist
era, was very specific. Very often the immigrants were segregated and „ghettoized.”
They were not very visible and were confined to operating only within individual
plants, factories or localities. After the Velvet Revolution, the agreements were
terminated relatively quickly and the number of foreign workers legally employed
within the old schemes diminished sharply - as of April 1993, only 1,330 were allowed to
stay in the country (Boušková 1998). Most of the former workers returned to their
mother countries, however, some started using the new economic opportunities and
established entrepreneurial ethnic enclaves.
1.1. Conclusions
- From the middle of the 19th century (the time we start with in this analysis) until the
Velvet Revolution in 1989, the territory of the current Czech Republic underwent a
very specific migratory experience. Emigration dominated over immigration under
communism and its very restrictive migration policy. Additionally, emigration was
mostly - according to legislation of that time - illegal in its character. Economic reasons
for migration, as well as political reasons during the communist era, clearly exceeded
all other incentives.
- Though there was a strong German minority in Czech lands (about one third of the
whole population) during the inter-war period (the First Republic), multiculturalism
has not spread or been a common experience throughout the country, except in the
capital city of Prague. Furthermore, the temporary foreign labour forces that came to
the Czech Republic under the “international aid” programme of the 1970s and 1980s
were not the typical migrants one is familiar with outside the communist world. Hence,
the experience of normal, lively co-existence of Czechs with other ethnic groups in
Poles and Vietnamese represented the most numerous immigrant communities, reaching up to ten
thousand people depending on what particular period is taken into account (see more in Boušková 1998).
During the 1980s, a maximum of 60,000 foreign workers (converted to “one migrant and one day unit”)
were resident altogether in the country
12
12
their country is rather limited13. Thus, a new experience with international migrants
who are arriving and often settling in the country brings with it fears of the “unknown”
and may sometimes lead to xenophobia or even racism.
- Despite the emigration tradition, or perhaps because of it, Czechs seem to be deeply
rooted in their own country. The reasons for the low incidence of Czech emigration
include: subjugation of their personal activities during the communist period, an
overall cultural mentality that discourages them from solving a situation directly and
drastically (migration is considered a drastic step), and strong emotional ties to their
property, place and social networks.
Of course, with the exception of Slovaks who, due to a long common life in one state – Czechoslovakia
– and due to very similar culture have until now never been considered by Czechs strangers and,
consequently, real foreigners
13
13
2. Overall Migration Scales
The analysis below is burdened with some important shortcomings. One of them seems
to be very important. So far, the collection, processing, and publication of Czech
migratory statistics by the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs, the Ministry of Industry and Trade and, finally, the Czech Statistical Office has not
been absolutely perfect.14 One can pinpoint, for example, inadequate cooperation among
ministries and other institutions responsible for dealing with migration issues15 and thus
far databases lack depth, dispersion and compatibility. There are some problems with
international migration data classification (e.g. a lack of detailed and structured “spatial
data”) and with the manner in which data are collected in the field and disseminated.
Some important pieces of information are not collected at all or are of poor quality (e.g.
reasons for migration), while others are not easily available to the public and to
academics (Drbohlav 2003b). Nevertheless, the latest development and activities are
rather positive and two sorts of specific yearbooks became essential bases of knowledge
for this study (see e.g. Cizinci 2001, 2002; Zpráva 2001b, 2002).
This chapter provides a basic overview of the most important “stock and flow” migration
data from 1997 and 2001 or 2002. It is organised into several subchapters, which
concentrate on the main direction of migration movements, migrants’ countries of origin,
motivation issues, the legal status of migrants, age groups, duration of stay and gender.
While the chapter focuses on the whole country, the special role of Prague was, to some
extent, respected, and the capital city is dealt with separately. Some issues are analysed
individually while others are described together. This overview suffers from some
problems, because we had some data prior to the year 2000, but they were insufficient,
and only since then have we been able to obtain reliable and detailed information (see
especially Cizinci 2001, 2002).
2.1. Direction and size of movements – basic parameters
The 196 million foreigners registered as having crossed the Czech state border in both
directions (and staying not longer than 180 days – see table 1, graph 1 – Appendix III) in
2002 demonstrate the country‘s openness in terms of population movements16.
Table 1. Foreigners crossing a state border of the Czech Republic, 1997–2002
(in million) (flow)
1997
213
1998
204
1999
199
2000
205
2001
204
2002
196
Source: Zpráva 2003
Note: Those registered as crossing the Czech state border (“flow”) in both directions (and usually
staying not longer than 180 days).
However, especially as compared to other Central/Eastern European countries (CEEc), “the statistics
collected in the Czech Republic are of a high quality” – as one of the official EU materials mentions
(Migration 2002)
15
For example, one can notice that sometimes and, to some extent, the “same data” in this text provided
by different sources slightly differ from each other
16
This openness sharply contrasts with the state of isolation under the communist regime, when, for
example, the number of all persons (foreigners and citizens of the state) registered as crossing the border
of Czechoslovakia was only slightly above 50,000,000 in the middle of the 1980s (Informace 1995, see
Drbohlav 1993)
14
14
Table 2 shows us the basic parameters of permanent migration (“settlement” and, at
least currently, “long-term”) – see below. From the establishment of the Czech Republic
in 1993 until 2000, some 85,800 immigrants have arrived in the country while its
emigration has been about 13,400 (hence, the net migration plus was slightly more than
72,000 – Populační 2002). However, as the authors of the same source mention, these
emigration figures seem to be rather significantly undervalued. Based on data from
some neighbouring countries (Slovakia, Germany) one can deduce that a more realistic
emigration outflow probably revolves between 4,000 and 6,000 thousand a year17
(Populační 2002). Since 2000, there has been another problem. At that time a new
registration system for immigrants was launched. Owners of visas exceeding a period of
90 days and immigrants who remained within the Czech Republic for more than a year
were included in the same category as owners of permanent residence permits. As a
corollary, by 2001 the inflows, but even more so the outflows, increased and the net
migration dropped to “negative figures” (see 2001 in table 2, graph 2 – Appendix III).
Apparently, not only the “name” of the migratory category as such has been changed
(“long-term migration” vis-à-vis “a visa issued for a period exceeding more than 90
days”18), but some “internal shifts” within the recategorization have been made as well19.
Obviously, the given numbers before and after 2000 are not compatible. Anyway,
respecting the newly applied statistical practice in 2001, except Vietnam, the Czech
Republic lost migrants to its main countries of origin (Slovakia, Ukraine, Russia and
Germany – Populační 2002). However, in 2002 immigration significantly increased and
the net migration reached its “traditional positive size” around 10,000 (12,290).
Table 2. Registered “permanent migration” in the Czech Republic, 1997–2002 (flow)
Migration/Year
Immigration
Emigration
Net migration
1997
12,880
805
12,075
1998
10,729
1,241
9,488
1999
9,910
1,136
8,774
2000
7,802
1,263
6,539
2001
12,918
21,469
-8,551
2002
44,679
32,389
12,290
Source: Pohyb 1998-2002, Populační 2002, Stav 2003
Note: The emigration statistics are far from complete.
Since 2001, a statistical practice has significantly been changed: persons who received a visa
issued for a period exceeding 90 days and stayed in the country for more than a year were
included in the same category as immigrants with permanent residence permits.
Also, note (see below) that numbers coming from the Czech Statistical Office, to some extent,
differ from those provided by the Ministry of the Interior (two different databases).
It is very difficult to get any precise overall data on Czechs working abroad. Data on
official temporary migration to Germany, by far the most important destination of
Czechs, indicated a decreasing number of Czechs working in that country between 1992
17
The reason is that by far not all of the emigrants, although it is mandatory, officially deregister
themselves before leaving the country
18
See the newly passed Act on the Stay of Aliens on the Territory of the Czech Republic (Aliens Act) No.
326/1999 Coll., which came into force on January 1, 2000
19
There is, for example, another problem springing from the fact that some data are included into statistics
only after a one-year period. Hence, there is a sort of a time gap between emigration and immigration data
15
and 1998, whereas for 1999 and 2001 the numbers went up slightly. However, in 2002 it
dropped again (see table 3). According to the best estimates available, about 50,000
Czechs (including irregulars and commuters within the border zone) worked in
Germany in 1992 (for time periods, see Horáková / Drbohlav 1998 and Horáková 1993,
1996, 1998). In 1995, the number was estimated at some 30,000 - 35,000.20 Germany
imposed an important limitation on some of these programmes in 1996 and 1997.
Currently, their number is probably much smaller.21 To summarize, outflow of Czechs to
the West because of work peaked between 1991 and 1993 (nevertheless, one can deduce
that it mostly concerned temporary stays with possible future returns to the mother
country). Since then, it has been decreasing (see also Marešová / Drbohlav / Lhotská
1996) and recently more or less stabilizing. The reason is that Western European
countries have introduced more restrictive measures (mainly because of high
unemployment rates in their countries and a growing xenophobic atmosphere among
their populations22). But more importantly, working in Western Europe for Czechs
became less attractive than earlier. First of all, those who wanted to leave for the West
had already left. Also, the fascination with the West, which was evident in the very
beginning of the 1990s, has dissipated. Further, the Czechs went relatively successfully
through transformation and their living standard has improved. There are many
opportunities to start a business or make a good living at home, particularly in light of
the indirect revaluation of the Czech crown vis-à-vis western currencies.
Labour migration of Czechs to other regions of Eastern Europe has so far been
negligible.
Regarding temporary commuters (mainly communting daily or weekly), there is no realiable and
centralized information at one’s disposal in the Czech Republic. Despite collecting some limited
information about Czech citizens who asked for an acknowledgement at job centres confirming that they
do not receive social support in unemployement (their would-be German employers asks for it), there is
no registration systematized since it is not clear at all whether an applicant will finally commute or not
21
Now it might be perhaps smaller than 10,000. This estimate is derived from a study of the Ministry of
Labour and Social Affairs from 2001 (Internal data 2001) in which commuting in two groups of Czech
districts (those bordering on Bavaria and Saxony and those from which the commuting of Czechs abroad
is one of the most frequent and intensive) were analysed. Regarding the former group, it was estimated
that 4,338 persons commuted (mainly in construction, services, forestry and some industrial branches),
concerning the latter one, the figure was 1,159 (particularly in services, agriculture, and partly in
construction and forestry) (Internal data 2001).
There are some other figures coming from an expert who works for the Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs – No. 6: “Some 8,000 citizens of Czechia work in Austria (we cannot separate commuters from those
who stay and work there), some 5,000 persons commute to Germany (officially). As of now, between 30,000
and 40,000 Czechs work legally abroad”
22
On the other hand, for example, Hönnekop (1997) points out that: “In agriculture, production would
have decreased had Eastern European workers not been available”. Also, due to the lack of labour force
mainly in some specific branches, which has been, in part, the consequence of an aging process (e.g. Lutz
1999), some of the Western European countries started implementing recruitment programmes for
foreigners (e.g., the search for computer science experts in Germany, or initiatives in Ireland and the
United Kingdom, among others)
20
16
Table 3. Citizens of the Czech Republic officially employed in Germany, 1997–2002
(stock)
Type of stay / year
18 months1
3 months2
“Green cards3”
Total
1997
530
2,266
2,796
1998
319
2,078
2,397
1999
441
2,229
2,670
2000
649
3,156
3,805
2001
783
3,136
249
4,168
2002
639
2,958
305
3,902
Source: Horáková-Macounová 2003
Note: 1 Work contracts of Czech citizens for 18 months as a maximum during one’s life (for
improving one’s qualification). (For example, in 1993, it was 1,292 - Marešová 1999).
2
Work contracts of Czech citizens for 3 months as a maximum during one year. (In 1993, it
was 10,964 - Marešová 1999).
3
Czech information technology specialists employed through so-called “green cards”.
Table 4 informs us about issued permanent residence permits, long-term residence
permits (until 1999), and visas for a period exceeding 90 days (since 2000). As it has
been mentioned, new legislative steps heavily influence these inflows. Therefore, the
figures before and after 2000 are not compatible. According to the Act No. 326/1999,
Coll., as amended, on the Stay of Aliens on the Territory of the Czech Republic (Aliens
Act - entered into force in January 2000), a new complex visa regime that contains
provisions for the issuing, validity and types of visas was installed. Those third-country
nationals who intend to come to the Czech Republic for a specific purpose, such as
employment, must first obtain a corresponding visa in their country of origin through
Czech embassies or consular offices. Accordingly, new formal statuses for a stay in the
country have been created and it is mandatory for anyone who wishes to operate in the
country under the umbrella of a long-term visa to simultaneously get a work permit or
a trade license. In sum, just as in the EU countries, external controls have been
strengthened. Nevertheless, what is clear is that since 2000, there is an increasing
number of foreigners who are interested in legally staying in the country over time.
Table 4. Issued permanent residence permits and long-term residence permits/visas for
a period exceeding 90 days (per year), the Czech Republic, 1997–2002 (flow)
Type of permit / year 1997
PRP
13,559
LRP/Visa90+
85,299
1998
9,867
87,628
1999
8,191
84,645
2000
5,451
20,863
2001
6,425
25,708
2002
8,019
30,954
Source: Zpráva 2003
Note: PRP – foreigners with a permanent residence permit; LRP/Visa 90+ – foreigners with a longterm residence permit/visa for a period exceeding 90 days.
The newly passed Act on the Stay of Aliens on the Territory of the Czech Republic (Aliens Act)
No. 326/1999 Coll. (came into effect on January 1, 2000) substituted the status of the long-term
residence permit (valid in the Czech Republic between 1993 and 1999) for a new one – long-term
visas issued for a period exceeding 90 days.
The table concerns newly issued permits (“flows”); In addition, renewed permits/visas have to
be taken into account. For example, in 2001 and 2002, 101,079 and 103,268, respectively, visas
for a period exceeding 90 days were renewed (Zpráva 2003).
These data cannot be directly related to numbers representing owners of these permits (“stock”).
17
The reason is that some persons can be issued a visa for a period exceeding 90 days several
times a year while for others the visa can expire.
Table 5 (graph 3 – Appendix III) gives basic “stock” data on permanent residence
permits (to a large extent, family migration), long-term residence permits (until 1999),
and visas for a period exceeding 90 days (since 2000), which, to large extent, represent
economic migration23. While again keeping in mind that the data from the 1990s and
2000s are not compatible, several conclusions can be drawn: in 2002, the stock of legally
residing immigrants in the Czech Republic was more than 231,000 – an absolute peak
during a short migratory history of the country. Since 2000, when recategorization of
immigrants’ statuses occurred, it has permanently been growing. Family migration
(which was not hit by the legislation changes) has slowly been growing over time as
well. Economic migration is not an exception; it has also been increasing since 2000.
Table 5. Foreigners with permanent residence permits and long-term residence
permits/visas for a period exceeding 90 days, the Czech Republic, 1997–2002
(stock)
Type of stay / year
PRP
LRP/Visa90+
Total
1997
56,281
153,516
210,311
1998
63,919
155,836
220,187
1999
66,754
162,108
228,862
2000
66,891
134,060
200,951
2001
69,816
140,978
210,794
2002
75,249
156,359
231,608
Source: Zpráva 2003
Note: PRP – foreigners with a permanent residence permit; LRP/Visa 90+ – foreigners with a
long-term residence permit/visa for a period exceeding 90 days.
The newly passed Act on the Stay of Aliens on the Territory of the Czech Republic (Aliens Act)
No. 326/1999 Coll. (came into effect on January 1, 2000) substituted the status of the long-term
residence permit (valid in the Czech Republic between 1993 and 1999) for a new one – long-term
visas issued for a period exceeding 90 days. Nevertheless, the data sets (before and after 2000)
are not directly comparable with each other.
Table 6 (graph 4 – Appendix III) shows us the number of asylum seekers in the Czech
Republic over time. Although the numbers have been growing since 1997 and reached
more than 18,000 in 200124, they dropped to 8,840 in 2002. The reason is that Amendment
No. 2/2002 to the Act No. 325/1999 Coll. was prepared and came into effect in 2002. It
brought about several significant changes in conditions under which asylum seekers
can apply and, consequently, stay in the country. Perhaps the most important change is
that under this Amendment, asylum seekers must wait one year after submitting their
application before they can begin work. In the past, once submitting the application
asylum seekers could start officially working. This was one of the very strong “pulls”
being used and misused by “false economic migrants.”25
In 2000, out of those foreigners who held permanent residence permits, 87% came under the family
reunification umbrella (both the reunification with a foreigner and with a Czech citizen). Also, out of
foreigners who held visas for a period exceeding 90 days, 86% were tied to employment and
entrepreneurial activity
24
By the way, it was in the 9th position in Europe (for example, with more asylum seekers than in Norway,
Denmark, Ireland or Italy – Zpráva 2002b)
25
Some other foreigners used the „asylum seeker channel“ for illegal/irregular transit migration through
the Czech Republic and/or for avoiding expulsion
23
18
Table 6. Foreigners asking for asylum in the Czech Republic, 1997–2002 (flow)
Asylum seekers / year
Total
1997
2,109
1998
4,086
1999
7,220
2000
8,788
2001
18,082
2002
8,480
Source: Zpráva 2003
Note: In 2002 a significant change occurred when the Amendment No. 2/2002 Coll. to the Act No.
325/1999 Coll., on Asylum, as amended, came into power.
The number of persons caught while trying illegally to cross a state border of the Czech
Republic over time (see table 7, graph 5 – Appendix III) reflect both the external and
internal factors involved. Obviously, the political and socio-economic
stability/instability of regions and countries in the broadest sense of the word come into
play. In addition, one has to take into account various measurements applied by
individual countries to react to “unusual situations” (strong migratory push factors).
Since both factors may ebb and flow over time, it is very difficult to assess how effective
a country is at controlling migration, and whether its policy (in theory and practice) to
combat irregular/illegal migration has become more successful or not. What might be
said is that no huge migratory wave of Afghanis has overflowed the country since 2001.
In 2002, the lowest number of foreigners was caught.
Table 7. Persons caught trying to cross a state border of the Czech Republic illegally,
1997-2002
Persons / year
Foreigners
Citizens of the CR
Total
1997
27,325
2,014
29,339
1998
42,957
1,715
44,672
1999
30,377
1,948
32,325
2000
30,761
1,959
32,720
2001
21,090
2,744
23,834
2002
12,632
2,109
14,741
Source: Zpráva 2003
Source countries
Two source countries dominate among those that supply the Czech Republic with
“permanent immigrants” and are closely linked with family reunion processes (flows a
year) - Slovakia and Ukraine. Unlike those from Ukraine, in 2000, out of 2,826 immigrants
from Slovakia 65% were citizens of the Czech Republic. A relatively high percentage of
citizens of the Czech Republic were also among those who immigrated from western
developed democracies. However, such figures probably represented former Czech
emigrants who had emigrated during the communist era and are, in absolute terms,
rather marginal. Thus, the whole picture of source countries is relatively stable.
Nevertheless, one can point out the important decrease of immigrants coming from
Vietnam over time (1,707 in 1997 versus 312 in 2000 - see table 8).
19
Table 8. Important inflows - foreigners with permanent residence permits by individual
source countries, the Czech Republic, 1997–2001 (flow)
PRP / year
Slovakia
Ukraine
Germany
Russia
USA
Vietnam
Canada
Bulgaria
Switzerland
Great Britain
1997
3,088
1,524
859
759
388
1,707
234
236
196
102
1998
2,887
1,595
688
593
255
1,204
187
247
153
90
1999
3,235
1,676
560
701
265
808
144
171
115
68
2000
2,826
1,213
537
433
395
312
141
140
117
103
Source: Populační 2002
Note: PRP – foreigners with permanent residence permit
Keeping in mind the rather imperfect statistics on those who emigrate from the Czech
Republic, Slovakia and Germany are the most attractive destination countries followed
by Austria, Switzerland, the USA, Great Britain and Italy (table 9). However, the numbers
are rather marginal and one can only deduce that those who emigrated from the Czech
Republic without de-registering themselves probably fit the aforementioned regional
pattern.
Table 9. Important outflows – emigration from the country (permanent migration) by
individual important destination countries, the Czech Republic, 1997–2000
(flow)
PRP / year
Slovakia
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
USA
Great Britain
Italy
Canada
Netherlands
Poland
1997
260
237
59
49
40
15
23
27
6
11
1998
356
345
137
45
57
29
39
49
22
22
1999
336
361
92
46
54
34
33
42
16
8
2000
413
361
93
69
57
37
34
29
20
19
Source: Pohyb 2001
Note: Incomplete statistics due to the small number of people who officially de-register
themselves.
As for the „stock,” Vietnam, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine represent the most important
source countries of permanent immigrants to the Czech Republic. While numbers of
Slovaks and Poles have been decreasing or have stabilised, the number of Vietnamese
and Ukrainians have been increasing over time (1997 versus 2002). Citizens of other
20
„eastern and western“ countries do not achieve very high numbers (see table 10, graph
6 – Appendix III).
Table 10. Foreigners with permanent residence permits by individual important source
countries, the Czech Republic, 1997–2002 (stock)
PRP / year
Vietnam
Poland
Slovakia
Ukraine
Russia
Germany
Bulgaria
Romania
Yugoslavia
USA
1997
5,121
11,940
12,689
4,632
2,475
2,261
2,352
1,384
1,620
1,880
1998
6,785
12,034
14,127
6,240
2,874
2,536
2,334
1,621
1,831
1,938
1999
7,954
11,598
13,018
7,790
3,486
2,517
2,331
1,714
1,747
1,826
2000
8,238
11,769
11,129
8,774
3,806
2,536
2,302
1,726
1,691
1,647
2001
9,901
11,592
10,850
9,909
4,097
2,535
2,166
1,737
1,658
1,506
2002
13,372
11,326
10,996
10,704
4,459
2,608
2,164
1,715
1,720
1,467
Source: Cizinci 2002
Note: PRP – foreigners with permanent residence permit
The predominance of “economic migrants” (foreign holders of long-term residence
permits – before 1999, and visas for a period exceeding 90 days – after 2000) coming
from Slovakia and Ukraine to the country is clearly evident. Furthermore, it seems that
this sort of polarization is growing over time (2000 versus 2002 – where comparison is
possible – see table 11, graph 7 – Appendix III). Out of the ten most important source
countries, four pertain to countries of the former Soviet Union.
Table 11. Foreigners with long-term residence permits and visas for a period exceeding
90 days by individual important source countries, the Czech Republic,
1997–2002 (stock)
LRP/VISA90+ / year
Slovakia
Ukraine
Vietnam
Russia
Poland
China
Germany
Moldova
Bulgaria
Belarus
1997
39,489
38,770
15,829
6,463
13,079
4,433
3,666
2,093
4,232
3,094
1998
35,494
46,444
16,090
7,155
10,132
4,106
3,712
3,038
3,625
3,454
1999
27,344
58,093
16,870
13,420
6,680
4,211
3,595
2,757
2,699
3,526
2000
33,136
41,438
15,318
9,158
5,281
3,410
2,432
1,909
1,716
2,134
2001
42,444
41,916
14,023
8,326
4,897
3,138
2,402
2,160
1,935
1,949
2002
50,106
48,441
13,771
8,354
4,670
2,821
2,575
2,366
2,019
2,066
Source: Cizinci 2002
Note: LRP/Visa 90+ – foreigners with a long-term residence permit/visa for a period exceeding 90
days.
The newly passed Act on the Stay of Aliens on the Territory of the Czech Republic (Aliens Act)
No. 326/1999 (came into effect on January 1, 2000) substituted the status of the long-term
residence permit (valid in the Czech Republic between 1993 and 1999) for a new one – long-term
21
visas issued for a period exceeding 90 days. Nevertheless, the data sets (before and after 2000)
are not directly comparable with each other.
Ukrainian asylum seekers represent the most important ethnic group among asylum
seekers who asked for asylum between 1997-2002 (almost 7,500). Other important
source countries are Afghanistan, Moldova, India, Vietnam, Romania, and Russia (see
table 12, graph 8 – Appendix III). On the other hand, significantly smaller numbers of
asylum seekers came from Algeria and Pakistan. In sum, European and then Asian
countries dominate whereas only one country – Algeria - represents Africa. As
mentioned before, among asylum seekers those arriving from countries of the former
Soviet Union play a very important role (42% out of all selected important source
countries between 1997 and 2002).
Table 12. Foreigners asking for asylum in the Czech Republic by individual important
source countries, 1997–2002 (flow)
Asylum seekers / year
Ukraine
Vietnam
Slovakia
Moldova
Georgia
Russia
China
Armenia
India
Belarus
Iraq
Bulgaria
Romania
Algeria
Yugoslavia
Sri Lanka
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Total
1997
50
23
19
30
2
34
1
42
13
18
283
724
159
66
30
89
268
11
2,109
1998
43
6
6
33
17
61
1
78
297
20
315
138
27
91
711
368
1,260
76
4,085
1999
94
34
13
98
10
245
203
34
887
44
346
141
124
105
622
900
2,312
223
7,220
2000
1,145
586
723
784
103
623
259
274
646
193
127
156
510
112
165
355
1,121
94
8,788
2001
4,418
1,525
388
2,459
1,290
644
317
1,021
1,305
437
296
289
1,848
129
111
146
356
70
18,093
2002
1,674
891
843
724
678
628
511
452
364
311
201
123
98
73
36
32
27
19
8,481
Source: Based on Cizinci 2002 and internal materials of the Ministry of the Interior.
Note: The given source countries were included on the basis of having more than 400 asylum
seekers during 1993-2002.
The following other countries had more than 30 asylum seekers in 2002: Uzbekistan 84,
Mongolia 79, Kazakhstan 66, Kyrgyzstan 59, Azerbaijan 48, Nigeria 34, and Turkey 31.
When evaluating the development over time, it seems that internal “pull” factors within
the Czech Republic rather than “disturbing push factors” in countries of origin influence
the whole picture. Apparently, to a large extent, quasi-asylum seekers (false economic
migrants) from Ukraine, some other countries of the former Soviet Union, Romania,
Vietnam and India made use of the very liberal regime of the Czech Republic until 2001,
22
enabling them to work officially after submitting their asylum application. Immediately
after the Amendment of the Law came into force (in 2002 – see above), the numbers
dropped considerably. There are some indications that an inflow of Slovaks, which
peaked in 2002, is mostly composed of Romas. Nevertheless, this inflow continues in
2003 and is closely connected with social policy changes in Slovakia (see the section on
national minorities). Slovak Romas were hit by a new and restrictive social policy that
significantly reduced their social subsidies and forced some of them to leave their
mother country. However, this phenomenon – so far having only mapped by journalists
– awaits deeper analysis.26
Table 13. Foreigners caught trying to cross a state border of the Czech Republic
illegally, by important source countries, 1997–2002 (flow)
Irregular migrants / year
China
India
Vietnam
Germany
Poland
Georgia
Moldova
Armenia
Ukraine
Russia
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Romania
Iraq
Yugoslavia
Turkey
Sri Lanka
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Afghanistan
Total
1997
784
550
477
1,780
1,514
5
517
35
842
162
1,929
213
3,879
2,326
3,569
873
419
3
62
2,311
27,325
1998
1,055
1,204
1,264
716
1,011
4
1,105
35
985
300
1,691
168
4,372
1,587
602
917
0
94
4,959
42,957
1999
984
1,613
893
502
1,051
25
1,118
60
1,592
431
1,967
108
5,796
829
2,778
475
1,992
15
121
5,242
30,377
2000
926
2,574
1,826
1,052
1,604
148
3,010
403
2,265
545
2,323
212
4,281
327
303
350
1,833
26
176
3,734
30,761
2001
512
2,706
1,300
1,764
1,193
1,118
1,742
1,573
758
335
669
280
3,911
418
156
204
272
111
106
695
21,090
2002
2,301
1,190
1,074
1,022
1,019
895
875
804
559
368
294
262
255
228
132
88
76
73
68
42
12,632
Source: Zpráva 2003
Many source countries of asylum seekers to the Czech Republic are also among those
whose citizens were caught when trying illegally to cross the Czech state border (table
13, graph 9 – Appendix III). This proves that the Czech Republic functions as both an
immigration and transit country. The “asylum seeker channel” is often misused and
becomes an important part of the whole irregular migration chain. Indeed, in 2001 and
2002, the number of asylum seekers who disappeared from asylum centres before their
cases were investigated and the final decision made, be it positive or negative, was 8,384
(out of 18,08227 who submitted applications) and 7,797 (out of 8,480), respectively. The
26
One of the problems complicating the analysis is that Czech statistics do not work with any sort of
“ethnic category”
27
Slightly different figure as compared to Cizinci 2002
23
corresponding figure for 1997 was 749 (out of 2,109) (Zpráva 2003). Without addressing
the difficult problem of how effective the policy of combating illegal/irregular migration
is (see above), the total number of foreigners who were caught when trying to illegally
cross the Czech state border significantly decreased in 2002. While representatives of
some countries are permanently illegally on the move (India, China, Vietnam, Moldova,
Germany, Poland), others arrive in temporary waves. For example, it seems that
regarding Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, the
mass migration flow has subsided. On the other hand, a Georgian and Armenian
increase is a recent phenomenon.
2.2. Motivation, legal status and duration of stay
Theoretically, a person’s ability to migrate is limited by his/her legal migratory status
and the associated restrictions for when this status was issued and for how long it is
valid. Current migratory legislation in the Czech Republic defines the following
migratory statuses above all:
• A short-term stay not exceeding 180 days. This status permits foreigners to move freely
as tourists, as long as they comply with the conditions for granting this visa or the
conditions set forth in so-called visa-free agreements.
• A visa issued for a period exceeding 90 days. This status is essentially for economically
based immigration, and is granted subject to one’s ability to prove the purpose of stay
(mainly employment and business, or, to a much lesser extent, study, therapy, etc.). It is
issued for a maximum of 1 year. However, it can be renewed repeatedly if there is a wellfounded purpose.
• A permanent residence permit for the territory of the Czech Republic is granted to an
alien particularly for the purpose of family reunification – cases in which a spouse, a
person of direct kin, or a sibling of an alien has been granted permanent residence in
the territory of the Czech Republic. It can further be granted on humanitarian grounds
or if it is in the interests of the country’s foreign policy. The permit is issued for a period
of 10 years with the possibility to renew it repeatedly. (After holding a permanent
residence permit for five years, a foreigner is entitled to apply for Czech citizenship).
• A work permit enables immigrants to be employed in the Czech Republic. Trade licenses
enable immigrants to create their own businesses in the Czech Republic. These statuses
are linked with obtaining a visa that is valid for a period exceeding 90 days.
However, it has been shown that theoretical presumptions are not always true in reality.
In particular, asylum seekers who claim they are persecuted in their mother countries
(see the Geneva Convention, on which the Czech asylum law is based) and claim that
this persecution is the main reason behind their migration are often not really “political
refugees” in the proper sense of the word. They are often either “only” economic
immigrants or transit migrants heading further to the West (see above). Asylum seekers
and refugees – those who have been granted asylum28 – represent a very small
percentage of the total number of immigrants. Other “humanitarian” statuses (a
“tolerance stay”/”leave to remain status” and a “temporary refuge visa” - see also the
The chance to be granted asylum in the Czech Republic is minimal. Between 1997-2002, the Czech
Republic granted asylum to 96, 78, 80, 134, 83 and 98 foreigners-asylum seekers, respectively (Zpráva
2003)
28
24
section below on asylum and other forms of humanitarian protection) are used very
sporadically.29 Finally, migration movements for study purposes and the re-emigration of
compatriots to the Czech Republic are, in terms of their size, marginal (see also table 14).
Table 14. Foreigners with permanent residence permits and visas for a period exceeding
90 days (those with length of residence longer than 1 year) by purpose of their
stay/residence (international taxonomy), the Czech Republic, 1997–2001 (stock)
Purpose of residence / year
Study and training
Business
Participation in “corporate body”
Employment
Other economic activities
Free establishment (compatriots etc.)
Settlement (permanent residence permit)
Family members, family reunification
Refugees
Asylum-seekers, humanitarian status, temporary protection
Persons without permits – waiting for repatriation
Other
Total
2000
2,441
45,767
19,598
34,288
138
4,166
25,478
47,227
549
271
71
267
180,261
2001
2,759
29,295
23,969
33,080
68
3,304
23,699
47,096
166
132
237
163,805
Source: Cizinci 2003, 2002
Note: In 2001, Out of the total number, 76.6% came from Europe, 19.8% from Asia, 2.1% from
America and 1.0% from Africa. The corresponding numbers for 2000 are: 76.5% from Europe,
19.5% from Asia, 2.3% from America and 1.2% from Africa.
Table 15 tells us that a stock of foreign students has been growing over time while new
enrollments (flow) have recently been slightly diminishing (2000/01 versus 2001/02). By
far the most important source country sending students to the Czech Republic is
Slovakia. In absolute terms their numbers represented between 1996/97-2001/0230: 836,
951, 1,150, 1,771, 3,501, 4,918, respectively. (Their share was 64% of all foreign students in
2001/02). Other important source countries in 2001/02 were: Greece 297, United
Kingdom 231, Russia 203 and Ukraine 192 (Cizinci 2003).
Table 15. Foreign students (measured via citizenship) studying at universities in the
Czech Republic, 1996/97–2001/02 (stock and flow)
Students / year
1996/97
Total (stock)1
3,721
New enrolments (flow)2
949
1997/98
3,897
967
1998/99
4,403
1,116
1999/00
5,468
1,515
2000/01 2001/02
7,480
9,417
2,721
2,574
Source: Cizinci 2003
Note: 1Excluding Slovak citizens enrolled prior to 1993. Data on universities under the Ministry
of Defense, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of the Interior for past years are not available
For example, 522 foreigners came to the country and were allowed to stay under the umbrella of the
temporary refuge status in 2001 (Zpráva 2002b)).
30
It is including private universities and universities under the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the
Interior; excluding Slovak citizens enrolled prior to 1993; only students in full-time bachelor’s and master’s
studies are included (Cizinci 2003)
29
25
and, consequently, are not included in the time series. Excluding new private universities in
2001/02. Excluding four other private universities in 2001/02.
Excluding Slovak citizens enrolled prior to 1993. Data on universities under the Ministry of
Defense, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of the Interior for the past years are not
available and, consequently, are not included in the time series. Excluding new private
universities in 2000.
2
It was estimated that slightly more than 2,000,000 Czech compatriots lived abroad in
1990 (Futurologové 1991 – see in Drbohlav 1993). Most of them settled in the United
States of America, where about 1,900,000 of them live. Other important ethnic enclaves
of Czech compatriots can be found in Canada, the former Soviet Union, Austria and the
former Yugoslavia (see table 16). Unlike in Poland or Hungary, Czech compatriots are
not very intensively involved in directly transforming their mother society after the
collapse of communism. Despite the fact that some of them did come back (see figures
and text above), many of them did not, and they simply circulate between the Czech
Republic and their “new” destination country (where they had emigrated mostly during
1948-1989) and do not settle in the Czech Republic for ever. The reason is that many of
them have successfully been integrated into new immigration countries and, in
addition, they have even stronger ties to this country, because their children and
grandchildren are firmly rooted there. There is one exception to this trend – a reemigration group of Chernobyl Czechs who came with a governmental assistance in the
aftermath of the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1991-1993 (see more below).
Table 16. Estimated numbers of Czech compatriots settled abroad, 1990 (stock)
Destination country
USA
Canada
The former Soviet Union
Austria
Romania
France
Argentina
Czech nationals
1,893,000
58,000
35,000
30,000
8,000
5,000
3,000
Source: Futurologové 1991
Note: The problem is that this source does not define what generation was taken into account.
(How down on the generational ladder did one go?).
There are two primary reasons for immigration: economic motives and family related
motives (mostly family reunification) – see table 14. For example, out of foreigners
staying in the country for more than 1 year in 2001, 53% declared that economic reasons
(mainly employment or entrepreneurial activities) were factors leading to their
immigration in 2001 (it was 55.4% in 2000, Cizinci 2002). From another angle, of all the
legally residing foreigners in the country in 2002 (those with permanent residence
permits and visas for a period exceeding 90 days), 37% stayed for family reunification
purposes (Zpráva 2003). Of course, there are also undocumented migrants who have to
be considered seperately. As evaluated in Drbohlav (2003b), “one might estimate the
current number of irregular immigrants in the Czech Republic (as of the very end of
2000) at somewhere between 295,000 – 335,000. (Of this figure - 165,000 might be
26
irregular migrants active on the Czech labour market, 30,000 their dependants and
100,000 – 140,000 transit migrants).” (See below.)
A more detailed breakdown of economic migration is provided in table 17 (graph 10 –
Appendix III). “Trade licenses” issued to foreigners dominate over “Slovaks registered
by job centres” while “work permits” issued to foreigners are less important. However,
when evaluating development over time, the number of work permits have been
increasing since 2000, unlike the former two categories. Generally, obtaining a trade
license for doing business in the Czech Republic is much easier (“administratively”)
than getting a work permit for being employed (see more text below). This has been
misused by many migrants. “Independent quasi-businessmen are those workers who
were provided with trade licenses, but whose working regimes in fact resemble what is
typically considered that of classical employees” (Drbohlav 2003b).
Table 17. Main types of economic immigration (foreigners – holders of work permits,
job licenses and Slovaks registered by job centres) in the Czech Republic,
1997–2002 (stock)
Migrants / year
Work permits
Trade licenses
Slovaks registered
by job centres
1997
61,044
63,529
1998
49,927
44,962
1999
40,312
58,386
2000
40,080
61,340
2001
40,097
64,000
2002
44,621
60,532
69,723
61,320
53,154
63,567
63,555
56,558
Source: Horáková / Macounová 2003
Note: A “total” represents economically active foreigners on the Czech labour market (for
example, 161,711 in 2002).
The newly passed Act on the Stay of Aliens on the Territory of the Czech Republic (Aliens Act)
No. 326/1999 Coll. (came into effect on January 1, 2000) substituted the status of the long-term
residence permit (valid in the Czech Republic between 1993 and 1999) for a new one – long-term
visas issued for a period exceeding 90 days. This change affected work permits and trade licenses
as well because they were/are closely linked with long-term residence permits/visas for a period
exceeding 90 days. Therefore, the data sets (before and after 2000) are not directly comparable
to each other.
The Czech Statistical Office provides data on migration motives of those who come
under the permanent residence umbrella (flow). However, a list of reasons that are
offered to foreigners to choose from is really bad. The picture does not bring clear and
straightforward results at all. The reason is that the statistics do not differentiate
between internal and international migration movements. In fact, the list of reasons
presented for both types of movements are the same.
2.3. Gender and age
When measuring female participation in different immigration inflows according to
reasons for migration, two results are worth noting. First, women comprise a smaller
percentage of those who immigrate for economic reasons, whereas in cases such as
27
family-based immigration, immigration for study/training, and immigration for
humanitarian reasons, women make up a higher percentage. (In only one case do they
exceed male percentages – see table 18, graph 11, Appendix III, “family members, family
reunification.”) Second, when evaluating development over time (2001 versus 2000) a
trend of slight, but nevertheless clear, growth of overall female participation (regarding
both the “total” and some other important subcategories) was detected.
Table 18. Foreigners with permanent residence permits and visas for a period exceeding
90 days (those with length of residence longer than 1 year) by purpose of their
stay/residence (international taxonomy) and by gender, the Czech Republic,
2000–2001 (stock)
Purpose of residence / year
Study and training
Business
Participation in “corporate bodies”
Employment
Other economic activities
Free establishment (compatriots etc.)
Settlement (permanent residence
permit)
Family members, family reunification
Refugees
Asylum-seekers, humanitarian status,
temporary protection
Persons without permits – waiting
for repatriation
Other
Total
2000
2,441
45,767
19,598
34,288
138
4,166
Females (%)
40.4
27.9
27.4
25.4
31.2
37.4
2001
2,759
29,295
23,969
33,080
68
3,304
Females (%)
42.5
28.3
28.2
26.9
22.1
40.2
25,478
49.1
23,699
49.3
47,227
549
54.8
39.3
47,096
-
55.4
-
271
41.7
166
36.7
71
53.5
132
40.2
267
180,261
29.6
37.9
237
163,805
30.0
39.3
Note: As of 2001, out of the total number, the highest share of females was among immigrants
who came from Europe (39.7%), then from Asia (39.4%), America (36.6%) and Africa (16.0%).
The corresponding numbers for 2000 are: 38.0%, 38.9%, 36.4% and 19.1%, respectively
When examining the numbers of foreigners staying in the Czech Republic longer than
1 year under the umbrella of permanent residence permits and visas for a period
exceeding 90 days in 2001 (table 19, graph 12 – Appendix III), males dominate over
females among representatives of most of the countries of origin. Accordingly, among
the two countries with the highest immigrant stock (Ukraine and Slovakia) males
comprise about 60 to 70 percent of the immigrants. These statistics make sense when
one considers that economic migration is the most common form of immigration in the
Czech Republic (with higher numbers than even family-based migration), and economic
migrants are typically individual males rather than females or complete families. Only
in the case of Poland and the post-Soviet countries of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia,
the share of females is higher than the share of males (between 50% and 60%). Women
make up an extremely low percentage of immigrants from Italy and the United Kingdom
(see table 19). These data might indicate that these immigrants are arriving in the Czech
Republic solely for business purposes, as such activities are often connected with men.
28
Table 19. Foreigners with permanent residence permits and visas for a period exceeding
90 days (those with length of residence longer than 1 year) by individual
important source countries and by gender, the Czech Republic, 2001 (stock)
Foreigners / year
Total
Females (%)
PRP
Ukraine
Slovakia
Vietnam
Poland
Russia
Germany
Bulgaria
China
Yugoslavia
USA
Kazakhstan
Romania
Belarus
Croatia
Austria
Moldova
Bosnia and H.
United Kingdom
Italy
Total
44,194
24,538
22,431
16,233
11,167
4,348
3,558
3,239
3,178
2,532
2,067
2,067
2,029
1,765
1,678
1,620
1,519
1,187
1,027
163,805
37.8
33.1
37.2
57.3
52.7
30.6
34.6
41.6
31.9
37.3
56.5
41.3
53.2
31.6
24.6
34.9
40.2
23.0
19.3
39.3
8,569
9,658
8,161
11,502
3,710
2,401
2,074
141
1,607
1,397
1,280
1,608
472
1,125
781
235
1,277
348
570
63,407
PRP
Visa 90+
Visa 90+
Females (%)
Females(%)
66.2
35,625
30.9
49.1
14,880
22.7
40.9
14,270
35.0
74.1
4,731
16.6
60.9
7,457
48.6
40.2
1,947
18.7
32.9
1,484
36.9
54.6
3,098
41.0
28.2
1,571
35.6
37.1
1,135
37.5
58.2
787
53.7
45.6
459
26.4
73.1
1,557
47.1
37.8
640
20.8
38.7
897
12.4
55.3
1,385
31.4
41.7
242
32.2
17.2
839
25.4
24.0
457
13.3
51.6
100,398
31.6
Source: Cizinci 2003
Note: The given ethnic groups were included on the basis of having a “total” higher than 1,000
immigrants.
PRP – foreigners with a permanent residence permit; Visa 90+ – foreigners with a visa for a
period exceeding 90 days.
Table 20 shows foreigners who are holders of valid work permits (including Slovaks
registered at job centres) by individual important source countries and gender between
1997-2001. This table also illustrates the “feminization” of the immigration process in the
Czech Republic. There is clear evidence of the growing importance of females over
time. Regarding all the countries in question31 (see table 20), except Germany, the share
was higher in 2001 (at times, quite significantly) than in 1997. Belarus had the highest
percentage of females (almost 50%), whereas only 18% of Germans employed in the
Czech Republic in 2001 were women. An interesting fact is that there is no common
“Western pattern.” It seems that Western European countries differ from the USA. For
example, the percentage of German women is half of that of American women in 2001.
The growth in Ukrainian females from 25% to more than 1/3 of all the employed Ukrainians is worth
mentioning
31
29
Table 20. Foreigners who are holders of valid work permits (including Slovaks
registered at job centres) by individual important source countries and
gender, the Czech Republic, 1997–2001 (stock)
Country / year
Slovakia
Ukraine
Poland
Bulgaria
Moldova
USA
Germany
Belarus
Total
1997
69,723
14.71
25,166
25.0
13,665
10.5
3,322
26.0
1,959
19.0
1,487
31.9
1,536
20.0
2,469
43.2
130,767
18.4
1998
61,320
15.3
19,255
27.5
9,941
10.9
2,721
23.8
2,074
17.7
1,385
30.1
1,545
19.9
2,014
42.4
111,247
19.2
1999
53,154
16.9
16,646
31.0
6,880
14.1
1,657
30.2
1,438
21.6
1,391
33.1
1,466
18.8
1,305
44.5
93,466
21.4
2000
63,567
19.3
15,753
33.3
7,679
14.2
1,523
30.9
1,446
26.3
1,356
35.1
1,452
20.1
1,139
51.5
103,647
22.8
2001
63,555
22.8
17,473
34.8
6,661
16.8
1,863
30.5
1,377
37.3
1,279
36.4
1,218
18.1
1,028
49.6
103,652
25.8
Source: Based on Cizinci 2002
Notes: 1Share of females (in %).
The given ethnic groups were included on the basis of having a “total” higher than 1,000 in 2001.
Table 21 (graph 13 – Appendix III) supplements the information from table 20 with some
other countries and also with the important characteristic of education required for a
given job/work. One has to distinguish two very different immigrant groups in the Czech
Republic. The first is an “Eastern” category (mostly other CEEc in transition), and is
mainly composed of young males who, in contrast to their generally high
educational/skill level32 (see e.g. Drbohlav 1997a), are hired for manual, unskilled and
underpaid jobs.33 The second category is “Western,” characterised by many more
people with a high level of education who are mostly engaged in professional and
managerial areas of work (managers, advisers, language teachers, etc. – see also
Drbohlav 2003a). Russia has an interesting position just “in between the West and the
East” – almost equal numbers of Russian immigrants were employed in jobs that require
vocational training as university education in 2001.
When dealing with officials at job centres, immigrants, on purpose, often undervalue their skills to have
a better chance to get work that is not intellectually demanding at all (Drbohlav 1997a). On the other hand,
No. 28 (and, partly, 29) warns that one cannot generalize too much in this respect. She points out that those
Ukrainians who are highly educated and skilled are also going to penetrate further into the EU countries
(they are only in transit through Czech Republic), and to search within those countries for positions that
would better correspond to their qualifications
33
This trend clearly fits with the dual labour market theory
32
30
Table 21. Foreigners – holders of valid work permits by individual important source
countries, education required for a given job and gender, the Czech Republic,
2001 (stock)
Country / gender
and education
Total
Females
(%)
Ukraine
Poland
Bulgaria
Moldova
USA
Germany
Belarus
United Kingdom
Mongolia
Russia
Romania
France
Total
17,473
6,661
1,863
1,377
1,279
1,218
1,028
989
976
887
764
613
40,097
34.8
16.8
30.5
37.3
36.4
18.1
49.6
21.1
69.0
47.2
20.8
18.5
30.7
Required education
Vocational
17,012
5,975
1,630
1,356
14
64
912
8
941
386
648
29
30,542
Secondary
184
237
86
8
446
279
28
306
4
103
37
96
2,840
University
277
449
147
13
819
875
88
675
31
398
79
488
6,715
Source: Cizinci 2003
Note: The given ethnic groups were included provided on the basis of having a “total” higher
than 500 immigrants.
Both individual permits and permits within contracts were included.
Concerning the gender dimension, given differences between the Eastern and Western
Europe (see above) disappear when analysing holders of trade licences in the Czech
Republic by individual important source countries (table 22). Obviously, except for
Russia, representatives of all measured countries, no matter from which region they
arrived, have low percentages of women.
Table 22. Foreigners – holders of trade licenses by individual important source
countries and gender, the Czech Republic, 2001 (stock)
Country / gender
Ukraine
Vietnam
Slovakia
Russia
Yugoslavia
Bulgaria
Poland
Germany
USA
Total
Total
21,590
20,403
7,051
1,890
1,500
1,123
1,051
940
585
64,000
Females (%)
26.9
30.2
10.1
43.2
17.7
23.1
36.7
23.0
25.8
25.6
Source: Based on Cizinci 2002
Notes: The given ethnic groups were included provided having a “total” higher than 500.
31
Obviously, the age structure of the immigrant population (those who stay legally longer
than 1 year, including permanent immigrants) is quite different than that of the domestic
one (table 23 and graph 14 – Appendix III). Whereas the youngest and oldest segments
of immigrants (1-14 and 60+) are represented by rather small numbers both in absolute
and relative terms, the size of foreigners in the economically active age (15-59) is really
huge (the share reaches as much as 86%). When looking at the gender dimension, one
has to point out a significantly lower share of females generally, but also in the 15-59 and
60+ age categories (vis-à-vis the structure of the Czech domestic population). This again
demonstrates that particularly economic opportunities lure immigrants (and so far
mainly males) to the Czech Republic.
Table 23. Foreigners with permanent residence permits and visas for a period exceeding
90 days (those with length of residence longer than 1 year) by age and gender,
the Czech Republic, 2001 (stock)
Age/
population
1-14
15-59
60+
Total
Foreigners
in CR
Foreigners
in CR (%)
12,834
141,590
9,381
163,805
7.8
86.4
5.7
100
Foreigners
Population
Population
in CR – females of CR1 (%) of CR – females
(%)
(%)
48.2
16.4
48.7
37.8
65.2
49.7
49.7
18.4
59.6
39.3
100
51.3
Source: Cizinci 2002, Pohyb 2001
Note: 1 Mid-year population 2000
Table 24 (graph 15 – Appendix III) reveals the basic parameters of immigrants’ age
structures by selected important source countries. When measuring the possible
impact upon a host society, one has to keep in mind the absolute figures, which differ
among given countries. Russia has reached a sort of migration threshold with more than
11,000 immigrants, while “neighbouring” Germany has just 4,300 immigrants. The two
largest immigrant groups (Ukrainians and Slovaks) also have the greatest percentage of
immigrants within the economically active population (more than 90 percent). The
smallest percentage of economically active immigrants is from Bulgaria. This source
country, along with Germany and the U.S.A., contributes a relatively high percentage of
seniors. Regarding other countries, however, this population segment is rather marginal.
It is important that among Vietnamese and Russians, children make up a large segment
of immigrants. Within the Vietnamese group, the percentage of children (16.4%) is
comparable to the percentage of children in Czech society (see table 24, graph 15 –
Appendix III).
To sum up, a breakdown of individual immigrant groups by age shows us there is no
homogeneous immigrant population. Instead, immigrants create a very colorful mosaic
due to their varying ages.
32
Table 24. Foreigners with long-term residence permits and visas for a period exceeding
90 days (those with length of residence longer than 1 year) by individual
important source countries and by selected age groups, the Czech Republic,
2001 (stock)
Age group / country
1-14
15-59
60+
Total
U
4.9
92.9
2.2
100
S
6.0
90.5
3.5
100
V
15.5
83.7
0.8
100
P
1.8
89.2
9.0
100
R
13.0
78.4
8.6
100
G
3.5
77.6
18.9
100
B
5.5
65.4
26.4
100
CH
11.1
87.2
1.7
100
Y
11.6
80.5
7.9
100
USA
8.9
68.9
22.2
100
Source: Based on Cizinci 2003
Note: U – Ukraine, S – Slovakia, V – Vietnam, P – Poland, R – Russia, G – Germany, B – Bulgaria,
Ch – China, Y – Yugoslavia, USA – The United States of America
Absolute figures decrease from the left (Ukraine: 44,194) to the right (the USA: 2,532)
When enriching the whole picture with a gender dimension (table 25), some other
patterns arise. First of all, only among Poles and Russians more females have
immigrated and stayed in the country for more than 1 year (as defined in table 25). The
same is true for these two groups when analysing the economically active age group.
Whereas female children predominate over male children among Russians, Germans
and Bulgarians, even sharper differences in this regard can be found when looking at
seniors among Poles, Russians, Vietnamese and, to some extent, Ukrainians. To
summarize, Russians and Poles have a very specific gender composition compared to
other selected immigrant groups. In fact, their female representation is quite important
across all of the age groups.
Table 25. Foreigners with long-term residence permits and visas for a period exceeding
90 days (those with length of residence longer than 1 year) by individual
important source countries, selected age groups and gender (percentage of
females), the Czech Republic, 2001 (stock)
Age group / country
1-14
15-59
60+
Total
U
49.3
36.6
60.4
37.8
S
48.8
31.3
53.0
33.1
V
46.8
35.1
63.7
37.2
P
48.3
56.4
67.9
57.3
R
51.2
51.4
66.9
52.7
G
51.3
29.4
31.6
30.6
B
50.8
35.3
29.3
34.6
CH
44.1
41.1
51.8
41.6
Y
47.0
29.2
37.2
31.9
USA
44.9
35.4
40.1
37.3
Source: Based on Cizinci 2003
Note: U – Ukraine, S – Slovakia, V – Vietnam, P – Poland, R – Russia, G – Germany, B – Bulgaria,
Ch – China, Y – Yugoslavia, USA – The United States of America
Most of the foreign holders of trade licenses fall into the 25-39 age category (59%) (see
table 26). The second most important age category is the one between 40-54 (about
28%). About one quarter of all businesspersons are women. However, within the
youngest age group females represent about one third. When evaluating development
over time (although limited to just two years, 2000 and 2001), there is again a very
modest trend of increased female participation.
33
Table 26. Foreign holders of trade licenses by age and gender, the Czech Republic, 2001
(stock)
Age group / gender
Total (%)
9.6
59.0
28.4
2.5
0.5
100
18-24
25-39
40-54
55-64
64+
Total
2000
Females (%)
33.5
25.1
22.3
21.8
25.6
25.1
(61,340)
2001
Total (%)
Females (%)
10.2
33.7
59.2
25.5
27.7
23.0
2.4
22.5
0.5
26.0
100
25.6
(64,000)
Source: Cizinci 2003
Ukraine has the highest share of businessmen among those between the ages of 18-24.
This statistic may indicate that these young men are actually quasi-businessmen who
simply disguise their employment activities (see above). As it has been indicated above
in the example of foreigners with long-term residence permits and visas for a period
exceeding 90 days (those with length of residence longer than 1 year), businessmen
from the West (Germany and the USA) have a larger percentage of persons in senior age
categories.
Table 27. Foreign holders of trade licenses by individual important source countries
and age, the Czech Republic, 2001 (stock)
Country / age
Ukraine
Vietnam
Slovakia
Russia
Yugoslavia
Bulgaria
Poland
Germany
USA
Total
Total
100 (21,590)
100 (20,403)
100 (7,051)
100 (1,890)
100 (1,500)
100 (1,123)
100 (1,051)
100 (940)
100 (585)
64,000
100
18-24 (%)
15.3
8.4
7.1
9.4
6.2
9.7
2.2
1.7
1.5
6,531
10.2
25-39 (%)
59.6
64.3
52.3
55.1
56.9
54.6
39.9
29.7
50.4
37,882
59.2
40-59 (%)
24.6
26.9
38.8
33.5
33.9
32.5
55.9
58.6
41.5
18,800
29.4
60+ (%)
0.5
0.4
1.8
2.0
2.9
3.2
2.0
10.0
6.5
787
1.2
Source: Cizinci 2003
Notes: The given ethnic groups were included on the basis of having a “total” higher than 500.
The percentage of foreign women who have been granted asylum as of December 31,
2001 is 39.7% (table 28, graph 16 – Appendix III). This statistic is the same as the
percentage of women who have officially stayed in the country for more than 1 year
(see table 19). When differentiating by individually selected ethnic groups, female
representation is greater among those from Armenia, Afghanistan and Belarus. In
contrast, Vietnamese who had been granted asylum had the lowest share of females.
Though about 25% of refugees (on average) are in the age category 0-17, for Armenians
this figure is 31%, while only 9% among those from the Soviet Union.
34
Table 28. Foreigners who have been granted asylum in the Czech Republic and had it
valid as of December 31, 2001, by the most important source countries and by
age and gender (stock)
Country /
age and gender
Afghanistan
Romania
Soviet Union
Iraq
Vietnam
Belarus
Armenia
Total
Age 0-17
Males
Females
27
42
22
13
5
5
8
7
6
2
6
11
9
9
154
158
Males
77
84
61
40
49
31
19
606
Age 18+
Females
52
49
37
13
9
19
21
343
Total
198
168
108
68
66
67
58
1,261
Females
(%)
47.5
36.9
38.9
29.4
16.7
45.0
51.7
39.7
Source: Based on Cizinci 2003
Note: The given ethnic groups were included on the basis of having a “total” higher than 50
persons.
In the following individual years (1997-2002), 96, 78, 80, 134, 83 and 98 foreigners, respectively,
were granted asylum in the country.
When analysing asylum seekers who asked for asylum in 2001, several facts are worth
mentioning. Among the most important source countries, Armenia sent the highest
percentage of women (43%). On the other hand and surprisingly, there was no female
among 1,305 asylum seekers who came from India. India is also very specific when
taking into account age composition. All but two Indians were between the ages 15-49.
Only Armenians (8%) and partly also Georgians (6%) have some people older than 50
among themselves. Armenians (25%) and Georgians (13%) together with Romanians
(18%) also have a higher percentage of children. Other source countries show a very
strong “middle age category” (15-49). Without deeply analysing the given situation, it is
not possible to draw far-reaching conclusions – for example, whether asylum seekers
coming alone without other family members are merely “economic migrants” who stay
temporarily, if they are in transit and want to join family members of who escaped
earlier, or if they are going to settle in the Czech Republic and invite their family
members later. Similarly, we can only speculate about those who come together with
their families.
35
Table 29. Foreigners who asked for asylum in the Czech Republic in 2001 by the most
important source countries and by age and gender (flow)
Country /
Age and gender
Ukraine
Moldova
Romania
Vietnam
India
Georgia
Armenia
Total
Age 0-14
Age 15-49
Age 50+
Total
Males Females Males Females Males Females
121
102
2,860
1,216
68
51
4,418
41
22
1,675
674
25
22
2,459
202
135
1,109
372
19
11
1,848
17
14
1,035
443
12
4
1,525
0
0
1,303
0
2
0
1,305
79
94
764
278
35
40
1,290
136
121
409
269
40
46
1,021
915
778
11,819 4,066
281
234
18,093
Females
(%)
30.9
29.2
28.0
30.2
31.9
42.7
28.1
Source: Based on Cizinci 2003
Note: The given ethnic groups were included provided on the basis of having a “total” higher
than 1,000 asylum seekers.
The source countries in table 29 (characterizing asylum seekers in 2001) are, more or
less, the same as those listed in table 30, which provides information about the gender,
age and source country of foreigners who were caught while trying to cross a state
border of the Czech Republic illegally in 2001. Therefore, it seems accurate to suggest
the hypothesis that many of the asylum seekers in 2001 were only “forced” asylumseekers who had asked for asylum, because of the unfavorable circumstances they met
on their journey through the Czech Republic. It is highly likely that many of these
asylum seekers have no well-founded reasons for being granted asylum, as they broke
their “neutrality” by attempting to cross the state border illegally (whenever it was – be
it before or after submitting the asylum application). Anyway, unlike Ukrainians and
Indians (about 1%), Armenians (25%) and, to a lesser extent, Afghanis (18%) had in
relative terms more children with them when trying to cross the Czech state border
illegally. Generally, female representation in illegal/irregular migration was
approximately 10 percentage points lower than their representation among foreigners
legally residing in the country (see above - those who have been granted asylum and
those who have legally stayed for a period longer than 1 year). Two extremes appeared:
in contrast with Indians, whose female population these supposed transit migrants was
just 2%, women’s representation among Armenian migrants trying to cross the border
illegally was 55%.
36
Table 30. Foreigners caught when trying to illegally cross a state border of the Czech
Republic by important source countries, by gender and age, 2001 (flow)
Country / gender and age
Romania
India
Germany
Moldova
Armenia
Vietnam
Poland
Georgia
Ukraine
Afghanistan
Bulgaria
China
Iraq
Russia
Total
Total
3,911
2,706
1,764
1,742
1,573
1,300
1,193
1,118
758
695
669
512
418
335
21,090
Females (%)
37.8
1.9
35.9
31.5
55.3
25.2
34.5
35.3
29.8
25.9
30.5
26.4
22.0
31.6
29.7
Children under 15
13.5
1.4
2.0
2.4
25.1
2.7
10.1
12.4
1.1
17.7
5.1
3.1
12.2
10.4
8.4
Source: Cizinci 2003
2.4. The capital city of Prague – a strong pole of attractiveness for migrants
The capital city of Prague is very popular among immigrants. For example, 36.1% of the
total number of foreigners holding visas for a period exceeding 90 days were registered
there in 2002. At the same time, 38.4% of all work permits and 35.7%34 of all trade licenses
received by immigrants were issued in Prague (see table 31, graph 17 – Appendix III).
Furthermore, 27.2% of Slovaks registered in job centres and 19.4% of foreign holders of
permanent residence permits were registered in the capital city (table 31). In 2001/2002,
out of all foreign university students in the Czech Republic (9,429), 54% studied in
Prague35 (Cizinci 2002).
Prague is the largest city in the Czech Republic and, consequently, the primary gateway
for foreigners entering the country. Because it has benefited from the spill-over effects
of globalisation and has become more westernized than any other area in the country,
Prague offers better job and income opportunities; therefore, it attracts labour migrants
from less developed regions. Prague is also the main destination for immigrants from
Western Europe, as well as other regions of the Czech Republic and CEEc (see Drbohlav
/ Sýkora 1997). Importantly, it also offers more anonymity for undocumented/irregular
(clandestine) immigrants than rural settlements. Besides Prague, other highly urbanized
regions attract immigrants more than rural areas. Since 1997, Prague has been a very
magnetic pole for migrants, except among those who have been issued “trade licenses”.
However, when elongating the time horizon to include years as far back as 1993, one
sees that the percentage of immigrants in Prague who had been issued trade licenses
was as high as 50.1% (Drbohlav 1995). Hence, in contrast to other immigrant categories,
foreign businessmen have been leaving Prague and spreading throughout the country.
However, mainly in the case of trade licenses it does not mean that immigrants really work in Prague - in
the place of their registration. It is a well-known fact that many of them operate throughout the whole
country
35
Students in all forms of study – bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, distance and multidisciplinary
34
37
Table 31. Immigrants in Prague by individual selected immigration statuses, 1997–2002
(stock)
Immigration status/years
LRP/Visa 90+
Permanent residence permits
Work permits
Slovaks registered by job centers
Trade licenses
1997
32.1
17.3
28.8
20.0
40.2
1998
26.6
17.1
33.3
22.4
33.8
1999
32.6
18.5
35.4
26.8
36.4
2000
33.5
19.0
34.7
25.5
32.3
2001
34.2
19.1
32.6
29.2
36.6
2002
36.1
19.4
38.4
27.2
35.7
Source: Cizinci 2003, Horáková – Macounová 2002, 2003
Note: PRP – permanent residence permits, LRP/Visa 90+ – foreigners with a long-term residence
permit/visa for a period exceeding 90 days. The newly passed Act on the Stay of Aliens on the
Territory of the Czech Republic (Aliens Act) No. 326/1999 Coll. (came into force on January 1,
2000) substituted the status of the long-term residence permit (valid in Czechia between 1993
and 1999) for a new one: long-term visas issued for a period exceeding 90 days. Nevertheless, the
data sets (before and after 2000) are not directly comparable with each other.
Some of the already mentioned trends are verified in table 32 from a slightly different
perspective (measured via foreigners who have stayed in the country for more than 1
year); namely, this table illustrates that Prague is a more important location for
economic migration than family-based migration movements. The previously
mentioned trend toward “feminization was demonstrated in Prague as well (regarding
“total” and in some of the “economic categories” and “study and training” in particular
– table 32). On the other hand, data in table 32 weakened the argument that spatial
concentration in Prague was growing. This hypothesis was not proved based on data
from 2000 and 2001 showing foreigners who have stayed longer than one year.36
However, to measure development over only a two-year period is really questionable, since one cannot
exclude the possibility of a “specific” migration situation in the given year
36
38
Table 32. Foreigners in Prague with permanent residence permits and visas for a period
exceeding 90 days (those with length of residence longer than 1 year) by
purpose of their stay/residence (international taxonomy) and by gender,
2000–2001 (stock)
Purpose of residence/
year
2000
Study and training
Business
Participation in
“corporate body”
Employment
Other economic
activities
Free establishment
(compatriots etc.)
Settlement (permanent
residence permit)
Family members,
family reunification
Refugees
Asylum-seekers,
humanitarian status,
temporary protection
Persons without permits
– waiting for repatriation
Other
Total
1,385
16,683
2000
2000
Prague/ Females/
CR (%) males(%)
56.7
38.3
36.5
30.6
2001
1,466
7,424
2001
2001
Prague/ Females/
CR (%) males(%)
53.1
43.6
25.3
32.8
12,241
9,281
62.5
27.1
29.7
23.4
13,972
9,298
58.3
28.1
30.6
27.2
80
58.0
36.3
30
44.1
30.0
637
15.3
42.2
574
17.4
41.6
6,962
27.3
49.2
6,205
26.2
49.8
10,244
75
21.7
13.7
53.8
28.0
10,277
-
21.8
-
53.4
-
3
1.1
66.6
-
-
-
3
159
57,753
4.2
59.6
32.0
66.6
28.3
35.9
2
124
49,372
1.5
52.3
30.1
24.2
37.9
Source: Cizinci 2003, 2002
Regarding the age structure in Prague (see table 33) compared to the whole country
(table 23), Prague has slightly more foreigners among the economically active age,
which comes at the expense of the other two age groups (children and seniors). Of
course, when juxtaposing foreigners’ age structure in Prague to that of the domestic
population, the predominance of people within the economically active age is much
more evident. As far as the gender dimension is concerned, the percentage of women
among all foreigners, foreigners in the economically-active population, and foreign
seniors is smaller in Prague than in the rest of the country. The only exception to these
statistics is the percentage of females among foreign children. The same is true, albeit
with much sharper differences, when comparing these statistics with the age structure
of the Czech population in Prague. To summarize, it seems that the economic
opportunities offered in Prague have thus far been embraced by males rather than by
females.
39
Table 33. Foreigners with permanent residence permits and visas for a period exceeding
90 days (those with length of residence longer than 1 year) by age and gender,
Prague, 2001 (stock)
Age/population
1-14
15-59
60+
Total
Foreigners
in Prague
3,748
43,107
2,517
49,372
Foreigners Foreigners in Population of Population of
Prague
in Prague (%)
Prague
Prague1 (%)
females (%)
females (%)
7.6
48.8
13.7
48.7
87.3
36.5
65.5
51.1
5.1
45.5
20.8
60.1
100
37.9
100
52.6
Source: Cizinci 2002, Pohyb 2001
Note: 1 Mid-year population 2000
2.5. Future migration stocks and flows
Reliable predictions of future international migration trends are for well-known reasons
almost impossible. To assess any concrete numbers regarding the future migration
development (stocks and flows) in the Czech Republic is a very risky undertaking;
moreover, it is outside the scope of this study. Therefore, only some basic ideas on
future migration trends linked with foreigners coming to the Czech Republic will be
sketched below (see Drbohlav 2003b).
The remarks will be devoted to a time horizon of the next 5 years, during which time
one can expect that the Czech Republic will crown its endeavor to become a developed
western-style democracy and will join the EU and function within it. The ideas are
based on the basic assumption that the European integration process will go ahead
according to plan, will proceed relatively smoothly, and will not be stopped or eroded
by a catastrophic event like the socio-economic or political collapse of a country in
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).
On this basis, the existing trends might be extrapolated into the future. Labour
immigration will continue chiefly in relation to the political, social and economic
development of the Czech Republic and other CEEc. Indeed, the character of economic
development in Western democracies might, to some limited extent, play some role as
well. Once CEE countries are able to polarize into several different subgroups, they
should, albeit with some problems, be able to approach the level of most developed
democracies. One can expect that the Czech Republic might be one of those countries
that will be at the head of this development. Hence, it will continue to attract significant
numbers of immigrants. Despite an attempt to regulate and limit the inflow of
immigrants, circular labour migrants will probably dominate the immigration mosaic
while some of them will probably settle down (see the “S-shaped curve“ in Martin /
Taylor 1995).
Accordingly, one might also expect a continuous inflow of asylum seekers who will
make use of the stable political climate and improving living standards within the
country.
40
Intensifying contacts with the western developed world and the harmonization of
economic, juridical, social and other conditions will bring about a permanent and
significant, but not large, contingent of Western immigrants. Over the course of time, the
passage of more transparent and compatible rules for doing business might function as
a “pull“ migratory factor for Western Europeans. In the meantime, further
harmonization of migration policies and practices with those in the EU will continue.
Logically, these changes will have important implications in relation to foreign labour
migration patterns as well.
It may be expected that joining the EU might provoke a short but strong immigration
wave from the East (probably mainly from ex-soviet republics) to the Czech Republic in
anticipation of even more systematic and restrictive migration policies. A huge socialeconomic polarization between westernized, rich and fortified countries like the Czech
Republic, Poland, Hungary and other CEEc will permanently stimulate irregular
migration flows. Once in the EU, transit migration through the Czech Republic
“westwards” will, to some extent, probably decrease and its role as a destination
country will increase. However, this does not mean that especially before and shortly
after the accession (when the living standard in the Czech Republic will remain
significantly lower than in traditional Western democracies), this type of migration will
not constitute substantial numbers and will not pose serious problems, as it does now.
2.6. Conclusions
The Czech Republic has quickly become a transit and immigration country. Emigration
does not pose many problems: since the Revolution, the migration outflow of Czechs
abroad (permanent, long-term and circulatory movements / commuting) to the West
has not been enormous. On the contrary, it has been decreasing since the mid 1990s
and, most recently, more or less stabilizing.
- The capital city of Prague is the main pole of migration attractiveness and draws many
different types of migrants.
- Via migration, the Czech Republic is closely tied to Germany and Austria on one side,
and Slovakia and the countries of the former Soviet Union (mainly Ukraine) on the
other side.
- Economic immigration clearly dominates over all other migration types. Excluding
transit migration, the most important reasons for immigrating to the Czech Republic are
economic activities (work and doing business) as well as family-based movements.
Family and informal links play an important “supportive” role in how to get to the
country, where to stay and what to do. The predominance of economic migrants
coming from Slovakia and Ukraine to the country is evident. As for the „permanent
immigrants“ (family-based migration; “stocks“), Vietnamese, Poles, Slovaks and
Ukrainians dominate in the Czech Republic.
- However, the Czech Republic also has (although it is much less frequent) immigration
from the West. In a comparative perspective, one has to distinguish two very different
immigrant groups in the Czech Republic – the “Eastern” category versus the “Western”
one. They have different roles, different positions in the Czech labour market and
dissimilar “structural characteristics”.
41
- Ukrainians represent the most important ethnic group among asylum seekers. Other
important source countries are Afghanistan, Moldova, India, Vietnam, Romania and
Russia, recently also Slovakia.
- In addition to the huge numbers of irregular migrants who operate in the Czech
territory for a long period (mainly Ukrainians), citizens of some countries are
permanently illegally or “quasi-legally” on the move through the Czech Republic (as
transit migrants), particularly nationals of India and China. In fact, asylum seekers are
often those who misuse the asylum status – they are frequently either mainly
economic immigrants or transit migrants heading further toward the West.
- There is an overall trend of “feminization” (the growth of female participation) in
immigration to the Czech Republic.
- The immigrants’ age structure clearly differs from that which is typical of the Czech
population. The size of foreigners in the economically active age category (15-59) is
really large (86%), whereas the youngest and oldest immigrants’ segments are rather
marginal.
- Regarding the development of migration in the Czech Republic in the future, the
existing trends could probably be extrapolated further. There are no obstacles to
believe that, generally, the migration situation in the Czech Republic will develop
similar to the situation in many Western European democracies.
42
3. Factors Contributing to Migration Movements
3.1. “Push” and “pull” factors and related labour market issues
Currently, there are no strong “push” factors that would propel mass migration
movements of Czech citizens out of their mother country. The contemporary Czech
Republic is a democratic, pluralistic and parliamentary society based on European
democratic tradition and principles. Despite many problems, the country has been
progressing through the transition period relatively successfully (as compared to many
other ex-communist countries) and, for the most part, has been able to maintain
reasonable living standards (e.g. Garson / Lemaitre / Redor 1996). In accordance with
world trends, indeed, economic reasons are the most important when analysing
motives for emigration from the Czech Republic.37 In harmony with theoretical
assumptions, the intensity of Czech emigration has followed the status and health of the
national economy and, similarly, the domestic socio-economic situation. Thus, the most
numerous migration outflows (albeit most of them only temporary in their character)
occurred in the very beginning of the 1990s (1991-1993). At that time, the country was
experiencing a marked economic (socio-economic) downturn. Since then, emigration
has been diminishing or stabilizing (see also the more detailed picture above). What is
behind such development? Working in Western Europe for Czechs became less
attractive than earlier – there was a revaluation of the Czech crown vis-à-vis western
currencies, there were many opportunities to start a business or make a good living at
home, and the living standard as a whole improved. Furthermore, Czechs seem to be
deeply rooted in their own country (a historically conditioned pattern) and, as
mentioned previously, the Czech mentality does not promote solving a situation
“directly and drastically.”38 Furthermore, during the past forty years nearly all aspects
of personal activity (a very important factor to emigration) were subjugated39 (Drbohlav
1994). Western European countries have introduced more restrictive measures too.
To summarize, the decrease in inflow of foreigners who come to the country primarily
for economic reasons (documented migrants) was due to: a) damping/depression of
some industrial sectors or branches (in relation to migration, this issue mainly concerns
construction), which naturally decreases some opportunities for employment
otherwise embraced by foreigners (e.g. Ukrainians); b) the decreasing purchasing
power of the Czech population which, consequently, complicates the prosperity of
some firms where foreigners might work and also hurts self-employed foreigners
themselves (e.g. those who have to rely directly on customers’ solvency - Chinese,
Vietnamese). (On the other hand, those immigrants offering cheap consumer goods on
the Czech labour market might also profit from the growing economic differentiation and
possible fragmentation of the Czech consumer market as a result of on-going economic
and political transformations – see Wang, 1998); c) Direct, suppressive measures such
as the “ban on stay” and administrative and judicial expulsions contribute to the
As an example for emigrants’ conscience, interviewee No. 16 mentions that migrants whose movements
are propelled by a poor economic situation are not protected by the Convention, unlike migrants who have
left their country for political reasons
38
To some extent, the mentality is “cemented” by firm material ties. For example, in many cases the effort
(work, money, and time) required to build a house (especially during communism) may mean that
people are perhaps more emotionally tied to their property and place than in other countries
39
It may particularly concern older generations of society
37
43
decrease in immigrant inflow. As such, “the ban on stay” is a big deterrent; the number
of people impacted by it increased from 9,525 in 1996 to 14,539 in 1999. Furthemore,
altogether 2,985 foreigners were expelled from the country in 1999 (versus 1,065 in 1996)
(Drbohlav 2003).
Broadly defined, three groups of factors play an important role when searching for
strong “pulls” attracting migrants to the Czech Republic (currently and in the future): 1)
geographical, 2) political, and 3) economic.
For example, interviewees No. 10 and No. 12 think “pushes” on the emigration countries’
side are stronger that “Czech pulls” and No. 25 states that quite frequently, several different
“push factors” can be at play simultaneously; No. 14 points out the importance of “pulls”
when speaking about asylum seekers, while also admitting that many of them are masked
economic migrants; interviewee No. 15 highlights the capital city of Prague with all its
beauties as a very strong “pull,” mainly for some specific migration categories; No. 6
suggests other sorts of reasons - the Slavic origin that contributes to having more PostSoviet immigrants here than, for example, in Hungary).
Often, these factors function together and are mutually linked. First of all, the
combination of such factors as relative political stability in the Czech Republic, its
geographical position (directly bordering on the classical Western World which has no
history of communism) and the strict migration policies40 of the western developed
democracies have led to the creation of a migratory “buffer zone” between the West and
the East (see also Wallace / Chmuliar / Sidorenko 1995). This migratory „buffer zone“ is
composed of relatively well-off countries (as compared to other CEE ones), such as the
Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary (see above and also see in Garson /
Lemaitre / Redor 1996). This compact buffer zone creates conditions for inter alia
intensive transitory movements, East-West cross-border movements, as well as massive
circular (temporary) migration for labour reasons within the region.
The socio-economic climate, including the labour market situation and, in some ways,
the relatively liberal legislation and liberal practices towards immigrants seem to be
crucial “pull“ factors for economic migrants, who arrive mostly from the Eastern world.
Despite the relatively short amount of time that has elapsed since the Revolution, four
periods of different labour immigration patterns in the Czech Republic can be sketched
(Drbohlav 2003b):
1) 1990 to 1992 - Political reform was implemented and the economic transition/
transformation processes started. Migration mechanisms were designed (responsible
bodies and institutions, legislation, specific programmes etc.). Immigrants were
“putting out feelers“ in the country.
2) 1993 to 1996 - The country went relatively successfully through the economic
transition and stayed, in terms of many economic parameters, in the top of all CEE
countries in transition. There was a huge inflow of economic migrants.
3) 1997 to 1999 - An economic disequilibrium occurred and, consequently, belated
attempts by the Czech government to combat the unfavorable economic situation and
On the other hand, interviewees No. 13 and No. 15 state that, especially during the 1990s, a rather liberal
migratory regime predominated in the Czech Republic and contributed to the arrival of many immigrants
into the country (a strong “pull” factor)
40
44
to speed up the transformation process via new economic measures led to the
deterioration of the macro-economic situation, while serious problems on the microeconomic level became apparent as well. Accordingly, the living standard of the
Czech population followed rather negative trends (a slight decrease in real incomes).
The migration policy became more restrictive and the inflow of foreign labour
(legally resident, documented) diminished41.
4) 2000 – to date - The turn of the century has brought some more significant indications
of improvement, i.e., economic revitalization. Competent state institutions/bodies
started paying more attention to the international migration issue. New migratory
laws and amendments were put into effect, although immigration policy and practice
continue to be more restrictive. While the inflow of foreign labour (legally resident)
diminished, it has recently been on the rise again (see table 5).
When elaborating more on reasons why there is a huge inflow and pool of immigrants
and why the absorption of economic immigrants into Czech society is strong and will
probably be strengthened, one has to pinpoint the following:
1) The considerable globalisation and internationalization of the economy;
2) The specific demands of the Czech market to meet labour deficits. This is, and will
be, differentiated by individual regions and professions, with a greater demand for
highly skilled professionals as well as those who will be willing to do the most
demanding and, at the same time, unattractive and dirty work.
3) In a system in which the minimum wage is very low and social subsidies are high,
the incentives for some categories of Czech citizens to work are very low. However,
this condition stimulates foreign immigration from countries with much weaker
economies because they are more willing to take the worst sorts of jobs and, in turn,
much lower wages. The reason is that sometimes there is no incentive to work among
unqualified Czech workers, but there is a great stimulus for foreigners coming from
countries with much weaker economies to take the worst sorts of jobs and, in turn,
much lower wages. For this situation to change, there needs to be political support;
but this may be a long-term process.
4) Employers’ never-ending, strong desire for a cheap labour force.
5) The relatively low mobility of the Czech labour force (the collapse of housing
construction, the absence of a real market with flats/houses, etc.) which, at least for
some time, might support (together with points 2 and 3 above) immigrants’
complementary rather than competitive function.
One of the main problems was seen in the disequilibrium between the growth of incomes and
productivity of work (see e.g. Ročenka 1998, 1999). Until 1997, real incomes increased more rapidly than
labour productivity, while the trend was reversed in 1998 (Ročenka 1999). Growing unemployment is one
of the ways to increase productivity and restore lost equilibrium. Unemployment rates for the whole
Czech Republic and Prague at the end of 1994; 1997; and for the last quarter of 1998 were 3.2 and 0.3; 5.2
and 0.9; 7.3 and 3.6, respectively. However, there are great differences by individual regions and districts;
as of December 1998, in five districts the rate of unemployment officially exceeded 13% (Zaměstnanost
1999). In 1998, the inflation rate was 10.7 and economy fell down by 2.2%. Accordingly, under such
conditions accommodation for foreign workers was minimal
42
Since January 2003 it is 6,200 Czech crowns
41
45
While summing up, it is worthwhile to pinpoint one general aspect. In fact, in harmony
with many other developed immigration countries, the following tested hypothesis was
also proven in the Czech Republic: 1) During periods of economic problems
(recessions, crises etc.), inflows of immigrants decrease, either as a consequence of
“natural reasons” (less room for immigrants to operate) or as a result of new restrictions
introduced by legislation; and 2) in the case of a growing economy, immigration usually
increases (e.g. Gieseck / Heilemann / von Loeffelholz 1995; Altzinger 1995; Rahman 2000
– see in Drbohlav 2002). This is one of the most important signs illustrating that the
current Czech migratory trends have quickly been shifting towards those typical of the
developed Western World (see more in Drbohlav 2002).
One other important pull factor should not be omitted. When taking into account
numerous ethnic immigration groups, the existence of previously established ethnic
enclaves (relatives, friends) plays an important role in attracting migrants, even though
these ethnic populations do not concentrate in specific spatial patterns. For various
reasons, these enclaves make, and will make, immigration for other compatriots easier
(see the network theory – e.g., Massey et al. 1993).
Besides the above-mentioned straightforward “pull” and “push” factors, there are other
significant aspects that condition one’s understanding of the Czech migratory reality
(see table 34). The history of the nation (going back as far as the Habsburg Monarchy)
has been transformed into “national memory”43, and this memory, along with
supranational dimensions linked to the Czech Republic’s geopolitical orientation, the
socio-economic situation, public opinion and “migration-specific instruments”, all
influence migration in the Czech Republic. Each of these factors determines what type
of migration policy is applied, what integration measures are implemented to help
immigrants adapt in the Czech Republic and, consequently, what the reality in the
migration field is (Drbohlav 1997b, 2003a). These factors shaping migration policy both
facilitate and impede migration as well as adaptation. They are mutually related and are
composed of other important aspects that can have contradictory effects (see in
Drbohlav 1997b).
For example, it may be reflected in politicians’ and bureaucrats’ behaviour, or in the design of judicial
documents and decisions
43
46
Table 34. Important factors determining migration/adaptation processes in the Czech
Republic, beginning of the 2000s
Factors / Aspects
Supranational dimension
Socio-economic situation
Public opinion
„Migration-specific
instruments“
Aspects Facilitating
Migration & Adaptation
Geopolitical obligations,
accession to international
accords, cooperation with
international organizations
in the migration field.
„Global globalization“
as such.
Relatively successful
going through economic
transition and
transformation
processes.
Positive heritage of
the 1920s and 1930s;
traditional solidarity
toward persons in need.
Established integration
scheme / programmes,
namely for successful
asylum seekers and
the recruited foreign
labour force (active
selection of skilled
foreign workers).
Aspects Making Migration
& Adaptation Difficult
Challenges when adjusting
to the globalization
processes.
So far the country does
not have a very strong
economy and there is,
a general lack of financial
means.
Collapse of housing
construction, housing
crisis.
Very limited experience
of immigration
(1948-1989).
Inadequate and distorted
information on immigrants
among the public; existing
xenophobia.
Immature stage of
migration policies and
practices.
Unbalanced policy
measurements.
So far, weak co-operation
between institutions.
Shortcomings in
monitoring of movements.
Inadequate activities
within scientific/research
circles.
Source: Based on Drbohlav 1997 (modified).
Future migration trends in the country will be determined by, more or less, the same set
of “push” and “pull” factors and closely related aspects. The reason is that many of
them function permanently (e.g. the geographical position and historical heritage) or,
47
may take a relatively long time to change within stabilised democratic societies. What is
obvious is that the “right side” of table 34 – the many aspects making
adaptation/migration difficult - will take on more “positive connotations” as time
progresses. Most importantly, the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU will finalise
harmonization in the field of migration policy and practice. Hence, while probably
maintaining some specific features, the key “pulls” and “pushes” in the Czech Republic
will approach even closer to those that are well-known in the EU as a whole (or some
of their countries). In fact, even though the management of the migration and integration
processes in the Czech Republic will very likely become more sophisticated,
straightforward, and coherent, no dramatic changes can be expected since
harmonization as such has almost been fulfilled.
3.2. Asylum and other forms of protection
As already mentioned, it seems that the asylum seeker channel mirrors the “complex
internal pulls” of the Czech Republic rather than external “pushes” from abroad. (One
can relate numbers in table 12 over time to potential migratory waves springing from
given areas “in disruption” in Europe or other parts of the world.) While the number of
asylum seekers remained more or less stable until 1997, since then it has been rapidly
increasing and reached its peak in 2001 (more than 18,000 – table 12). The state
administration prepared Amendment No. 2/2002 to the Act No. 325/1999 Coll. that came
into effect in February 2002, thereby reacting to very strong “pulls” economic and
transit migrants made use or misuse of. Until that time, many foreigners used the asylum
seeker channel only for legalizing their working activities,44 making their transit
migration through the Czech Republic easier and/or attempting to avoid expulsion. The
measurement was successful and the number of asylum seekers dropped significantly
to 8,840 in 2002. The Amendment brought about several significant changes in
conditions under which asylum seekers can apply and, consequently, stay in the
country. Perhaps the most important is that an asylum seeker is now allowed to work
only after one year has elapsed since his/her application has been submitted. Also,
besides other regulations, the possibility of submitting a new application (if it has been
denied previously) has been restricted. An asylum procedure may be stopped or
abated after an asylum seeker is caught while trying to cross the state border without
permission. Furthermore, conditions under which social subsidies were paid have
become tougher and stricter conditions govern the registration of a stay outside the
refugee centres as well. In sum, it appears that the new measurements have primarily
deterred Ukrainians and other “quasi”-asylum seekers from the former Soviet Union
from misusing this channel. Nevertheless, it is certain that this channel is still significant.
There is another important humanitarian status labeled as “temporary refuge”. Until
1999, it was exclusively based on an extra legislative activity declared by the
Government (Governmental Resolutions that typically occur on a year to year basis).
Since 2000, as a part of newly developed legislation,45 this status has been incorporated
into the new Alien Act under the umbrella of a “temporary stay with a long-term visa for
the purpose of temporary refuge”. It was an important instrument for humanitarian aid,
particularly during the civil war in countries of the former Yugoslavia. Between 1991 and
Between October 1999 and February 2002, asylum seekers could work without having a working permit
See the Act on the Stay of Aliens on the Territory of the Czech Republic No. 326/1999 Coll.; it came into
force on January 1, 2000
44
45
48
1996 (especially in 1992 and 1993), altogether 5,237 foreigners, mainly from Bosnia and
Herzegovina (3,630), used this entrance channel in order for them to find a temporary
safe heaven in the Czech Republic (Žadatelé 1997). This status is tied to repatriation.
Thus, after the situation calmed down, some of these “refugees” were repatriated (about
700 persons). However, handicapped persons could legally stay and be integrated into
the Czech society together with their other family members (this was the case of about
120).46 Since then, the numbers of foreigners who fall into this status have been
marginal47. Accordingly, the impact of this immigrant category upon the Czech society
is minimal. For example, one of the latest activities in this field was the Governmental
Resolution No. 721 of July 18, 2001, enabling 250 citizens of the Russian Federation who
escaped from the war in Chechnya (and had asked for asylum in the Czech Republic)
to be granted temporary protection (as of June 30, 2002) (Zpráva 2002b). Nevertheless,
only 8 persons were provided with a visa for the purpose of temporary protection in
2001 (Zpráva 2002 see also text below).
3.3. Family and other informal links
Very soon after establishing a “normal migratory environment,” family and other
informal links started playing an important role in immigrants’ lives in the Czech
Republic. Indeed, as in other developed immigration countries (and in harmony with
the network theory), “social networks” of family and friends were quickly established
in the country and made the whole immigration process easier and more comfortable
for those who arrived after the “pioneers.” They benefited from the earlier group’s
established housing arrangements, social contacts, knowledge of the job market, and
morale and psychological support. This concerns a model of behavior typical of, for
example, Ukrainians, Chinese, Armenians and Georgians in the Czech Republic (see e.g.
Drbohlav 1997a; Drbohlav et al. 1999; Uherek 2003; Obuchová 2002; Černík 2000;
Maroušek 2000 – according to Uherek 2003).
It is also explicitly supported by interviewees No. 10, No. 13, No. 15 and No. 11 who
mention a “snow-ball effect”. In this context, No. 12 also indicates a trend that (after some
three years) temporary, circular migration changes into a long-term, and, consequently,
permanent migration. He also calls for more intensive family reunification (for those who
stay more than 1 year) since, as he further stipulates, the integration of those who have
their families with them is much more successful. (More or less the same idea was
expressed by No. 15.) Interviewee No. 16 points out that family reunification is closely
related to migrants’ primary goals and she identifies mainly those from the former Soviet
Union as, so far, rather temporary circular migrants without desires to settle at this
moment. According to No. 6, the strongest communities have been created by Ukrainians
and Vietnamese (see also No. 2). Correspondingly, there is a danger of involvement in
organised crime (No. 6).
The empirical results of two surveys conducted among Ukrainian circular labour
migrants from 1995/1996 and 1999 (Drbohlav 1997a; Drbohlav / Janská / Šelepová 1999)
The temporary refuge status for citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina was officially terminated on
September 30, 1997
48
One can mention the Governmental Resolution No. 378 of April 1999, according to which persons
escaping from Kosovo province of Yugoslavia (1,034) could stay under the temporary refuge umbrella
until the very end of 1999. 822 of them were then repatriated (Haišman 2001)
46
49
clearly show how important social networks are. (See specific information on sampling
methods and other details in the section “illegal employment and exploitation.”) For
example, out of 192 respondents in the 1995/1996 survey, 34% of the Ukrainians in the
Czech Republic proclaimed they were going to invite their relatives from Ukraine and
18% intended to invite their children for a long time. The 1999 survey tells us that (out
of 100 respondents) 22% of the surveyed Ukrainians were going to invite their wives, 24%
their children, and 40% their other relatives. Of course, the most important question is
whether these proclamations are materialized in reality.
3.4. Ethnic immigration
In 1989, three and half years after the Chernobyl disaster, the Soviet press released that
the radioactive threat to the population even beyond the 30 km zone around Chernobyl
was much higher than the official version had admitted. In such a depressing
atmosphere, this information triggered out-migration from the afflicted area where
(Chernobyl / Volhynian) Czechs by origin lived48 (mostly in Mala Zubovshczina and
Korosten). Based on a request for resettlement into their mother country, the Czech
Government passed the Governmental Resolution No. 340/90 and the Federal
Government passed Governmental Resolution No. 905/90, which permitted the
resettlement of these persons. Under the Programme of Humanitarian Aid, 1,812
persons were resettled from Ukraine and Belarus to the Czech Republic between 1991
and 1993.
The criteria required to be re-settled through the programme was as follows: 1) Proving
the Czech origin of at least one person in a married couple, and 2) having had
permanent residence status in the region where the catastrophe occurred for at least
two years. For humanitarian reasons, elderly people who wished to resettle were
allowed to migrate together with their children’s families, even if they were not directly
hit by the catastrophe (because they lived outside the disaster area). As a part of the
resettlement programme, Czechoslovakia respectively the Czech Republic provided
reemigrants with free transport (people and their belongings), health services, a
permanent residence permit with an opportunity to obtain Czechoslovakian
citizenship, assurance of a job for at least one able-bodied member of the family,
accommodation, education for children, and so on. NGOs were also involved in the
re-settlement process.
This collective humanitarian programme was the only one. The reason was that it
stimulated an interest for reemigration of other, relatively stable Czech communities
abroad. A solution was found by launching a special reemigration programme organised
by NGOs on an individual basis. Thus, further possibilities to resettle were offered to
individual compatriots who lived in selected remote areas or regions in jeopardy - e.g.
people of Czech origin in Romania or Kazakhstan.
Their ancestors mostly came during the second half of the 19th century. At that time, they faced rather
limited economic opportunities at home, while chances to get to the New World significantly shrunk.
However, new spaces in the East promised a land and of hope and prosperity in agriculture (more in
Janská / Drbohlav, forthcoming)
48
50
3.5. Irregular migration, including trafficking and smuggling in human beings;
irregular labour immigration and the evolution of migratory legislation
Based mainly on Drbohlav (2003b), let us first elaborate on irregular economic/labour
immigration. This category of migration is very important in the Czech Republic in terms of
both quantitative (high numbers) and qualitative (possible important impacts upon various
social structures) aspects.
The undocumented migration of aliens is a situation in which one’s entry or stay does not, or
has ceased, to fulfill the conditions for entry or long-term residence as stipulated by relevant
intrastate laws or international agreements, to which the Czech Republic is a party. No doubt,
irregular labour immigrants change the whole picture drawn by legally residing economic
migrants. The estimate of these irregular immigrants is for many reasons a very complicated
matter (e.g. there are many different migratory types; rather poor statistics exist even
regarding legal immigrants; „shifts“ over time – both within illegal and legal statuses and from
legal to illegal status – occur, as well as vice versa; there are not many objective case studies
of irregular migrants from which „totals“ might be derived, etc.). One might estimate the
current number of undocumented economic immigrants in the Czech Republic (as of the
very end of 2000) at somewhere close to 200,000. Of this figure, 165,000 might be irregular
migrants active on the Czech labour market and some 30,000 their dependents.49 (Between
2000 and 2002, 22,355, 18,309 and 19,573, respectively, foreigners were caught violating the Law
on a Stay on the territory of the Czech Republic in the interior – Zpráva 2003.)
Interviewee No. 6 states that usually the number of estimated undocumented migrants in the
Czech Republic ranges between 50 and 200% compared to those who stay legally/were
registered.
Prague and its surroundings provide a good example of the impact of irregular immigrants.
While there should have been some 58,000 international migrants staying or registering
themselves officially in Prague at the end of 2000 (the „stock“ in the given year), estimates
show that as many as 80,000 could have been added to this figure in order to provide a more
realistic illustration what is going on in the migration field. In the middle of the 1990s, the
number of foreigners in Prague (excluding tourists) was estimated to have been more than
10% of the total population (see also Čermák et al. 1995). Table 35 provides a rough
quantitative assessment regarding important communities of foreign irregular immigrants by
their country or region in Prague. Based on the existing statistics and the author’s own
experience, it can be deduced that while North Americans, Chinese, and Western Europeans
are concentrated in Prague or in its near surroundings, Ukrainians and transit migrants
operate throughout the entire republic (see below). It is not difficult to conclude that in the
case of Ukrainian workers, the overall number of undocumented migrants in the Czech
Republic is equivalent to the number of legally registered immigrants (Drbohlav 1997a)50.
49
This estimate is based on interviews made with representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs of the Czech Republic and the Institute of Work and Social Affairs in June 2001 (Drbohlav 2003b).
Furthermore, studies done by Drbohlav 1997a; Kroupa et al. 1997; Drbohlav et al. 1999, were also taken
into account. The hypothesis is that at the end of 2000, to some 165,000 foreigners who work in the Czech
Republic temporarily, but usually for more than several months (those with work permits, trade licenses
and Slovaks being registered at job centres), one may add the same number (165,000) of persons in the
irregular foreign labour force with perhaps some 30,000 dependants
50
Such a number is perfectly supported by Malinovskaja’s estimate. She states that at least 100,000
Ukrainians are working in the Czech Republic at present (Malinovskaja 2002)
51
Table 35. Estimate of selected most important communities of foreign undocumented
migrants in Prague and nearby surroundings at the turn of the century
Country / Region of origin
North America
Ukraine
China
Western Europe
Transit migrants
Number
10,000 – 20,000
some 20,000
10,000 – 20,000
5,000 – 10,000
some 10,000
Source: Drbohlav 2003b) - author’s assessment - based on own experience and research
(e.g. Drbohlav 1997a), Drbohlav et al. 1999; Lupták / Drbohlav 1999), many secondary sources
of information and various data from the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. Also,
estimates are derived from the character of the spatial and functional setting and organization
of ethnic groups - see Drbohlav 2003b).
Nevertheless, three examples show us how questionable the information about
irregular immigrants in the Czech Republic might be:
1) The information about U.S. citizens in Czechoslovakia as of May 1, 1993 (data from a
1993 survey administered by the U.S. Department of State - see Bratsberg / Terrell
1996) tells us that according to an American survey, some 10,000 Americans were
residing Czechoslovakia at that time. However, official Czech statistics reported 1,621
Americans in the Czech Republic in 1993. At the same time, the number of Americans
in Slovakia was much lower than in the Czech Republic.
2) According to official Czech statistical sources, 2,147 citizens of Moldova were residing
in the Czech Republic as of the end of 2000 (Horáková / Macounová 2003), but
according to the Moldovan “secrete service”, the figure was higher than 40,000
(Mošnjaga 2000).
3) While Czech statistics calculate that there were 24,824 legally residing Vietnamese in
the Czech Republic until the end of 1999 (Horáková / Macounová 2003),
representatives of the Vietnamese-Czech Association estimate that more than 70,000
Vietnamese were living in the country at the end of the last century (Haišman 2001).
Simply, one lesson should be learnt – when estimating the number of irregular
immigrants, it is always better to look at sources from both the countries of destination
and countries of origin.
As it has been clearly shown in the example of Ukrainians (e.g. Lupták / Drbohlav 1999),
there has recently been an important shift from “work permits“ to “trade licenses,“ or
to the black market. (As interviewee No.16 tells us, for example, Ukrainians may use both
false documents and genuine documents that originally belonged to a different person).
The strict and bureaucratic regime which deals with the employment of foreigners, as
well as the application of more restrictive measures toward migrants, lead Ukrainians in
the Czech Republic either to switch from “work permits“ to “trade licenses,” which are
easier for foreigners to obtain, or to simply enter the black market and operate as
undocumented persons in the country. Ukrainian independent quasi-businessmen are
those workers who were provided with trade licenses, but whose working regimes in
fact resemble what is typically considered that of classical employees (these are really
52
„hidden employees“ - see also interview No. 6). They are active in the same kinds of
occupation (“unqualified employees“ in various sectors of the economy) as “normal
employees“. The whole system of issuing trade licenses to foreigners is a very liberal
model, which is frequently misused by many foreigners (e.g. establishing public trading
and limited liability companies within which foreign business persons now legally
operate and function only as employees). It has been proven that this is the most
advantageous way to legally penetrate the country and then legally or quasi-legally
work or operate there.
The restrictive and bureaucratic measures that were applied to foreigners’ employment
activities (these measures used to exist in the Czech-Ukrainian agreement about mutual
employment as well) did not actually contribute to a decrease in the number of
Ukrainians and other immigrants in the Czech Republic. Instead, it is more likely that
events happened the other way around. In contrast to official statistical data (though the
numbers dropped in the very beginning of the 1990s, they started increasing again), the
number of irregular immigrants has probably increased. Indeed, this situation is also
reflected in the perceptions of the Czech public, which confirm a quantitative growth in
the foreign labour force in the country over time - 1997 versus 1999 and 1999 versus
200151 (see the results of the opinion poll – Veřejné 1999; O vztahu 2001).
As for transit migration,52 the estimate given for the Czech Republic by the UN in the
beginning of 1990s was 100,000-140,000. This figure does not appear to overestimate the
situation. Based on discussions with border control authorities in Western Europe,
Widgren estimates that at least 4-6 times the number of people apprehended (see table
13) got through undetected (Widgren in Salt 2000, see also Widgren 1994). When
applying this estimate to the number of people caught on the Czech border upon illegal
border crossing, one can easily come up with more than 100,000 transit migrants, except
for 2002 (see table 13). The number of migrants who were apprehended when trying to
cross the Czech state border illegally in 2002 (12,632) would correspond to slightly lower
numbers of unapprehended transit migrants per year. However, it is very difficult to find
out what crucial factors are behind such a development (whether there are really fewer
migrants trying illegally to cross the state border, or it depends on how the border is
guarded).
So far, asylum seekers have played an important role in illegal migration movements
across the state border (table 36). Particularly in 1999 and 2002, the number of “quasiasylum seekers” who disappeared from a refugee centre before investigation of their
case was finished (and a decision whether to grant asylum or not was made) exceeded
or almost reached the number of asylum seekers who had newly arrived and asked for
Whereas in 1999, 60% of respondents declared that they know foreigners who work in the Czech
Republic (a representative survey – see below), in 2001 this figure increased to 69%. The growth mainly
concerned Ukrainians (an increase of 25% to 30%) and Vietnamese (from 9% to 14%) (O vztahu 2001)
52
“Transit migration in the Czech Republic might be briefly defined as a movement through the country
where the migrants main intention is not to stay and live there, but only to go through and reach other
countries as soon as possible. Migrants usually transit Czechia on their way to Western Europe, but for
many reasons their movement is not as easy and rapid as anticipated (see e.g. Transit 1994); plans of
many of them come to nothing and, at least temporarily, they are forced to stay in Czechia or to return
eastward” (Drbohlav 2003 b)
51
53
asylum in the Czech Republic during the same year. Evidence of the stipulation that
many asylum seekers are, in fact, only transit migrants is presented in table 36 (graph
18 – Appendix III). As a matter of fact, a significant percentage of those who disappeared
from a refugee centre (27% in 2002 and 60% in 2003) were detained when illegally
attempting to cross a state border of the Czech Republic. Furthermore, some of them
tried it more than once (more in Zpráva 2003).
Table 36. Asylum seekers and “quasi-asylum seekers” in the Czech Republic, 1997–2002
(flows)
Asylum seekers / year
Total
“Disappeared” from
a refugee centre
Caught when trying
to illegally cross
the state border
1997
2,109
1998
4,086
1999
7,220
2000
8,788
2001
18,082
2002
8,480
749
1,900
7,786
4,277
8,384
7,797
403
490
3,204
2,805
5,056
2,067
Source: The Ministry of the Interior - Zpráva 2003
Note: In 2002, a significant change occurred when the Amendment No. 2/2002 Coll. to the Act
No. 325/1999 Coll., on Asylum, as amended, came into effect.
“Since the establishment of the independent Czech Republic, 284,000 persons have
crossed the state border or clearly have attempted do to that. Out of this number, 20,000
were citizens of the Czech Republic while 264,000 were foreigners – 242,000 citizens of
countries not bordering on the Czech Republic. The development over time reflects
international conditions and measurements adopted by individual countries to handle
it. For example, the very high numbers of clandestine immigrants caught on the border
was the result of a restrictive asylum law that Germany implemented in 1993.
Furthermore, in January 1994, flows adjusted in response to a visa regime with
Yugoslavia. Indeed, the civil war conflict in the former Yugoslavia had an important
impact on irregular migration flows and peaked in 1998/1999. In 2001, these flows across
the state border decreased and reached, more or less, the same level as in 1996. Despite
expectations, no wave of irregular migrants were coming to the Czech Republic from
Afghanistan after the US retaliating occurred in a fall 2001” (Zpráva 2003).
Permanently, illegal border-crossers can be are apprehended when leaving the country
mainly on the Czech-German border – more specifically, in the area of Ústí nad Labem
/ Děčín. Nevertheless, the share of this zone of the whole number of caught respective
migrants has recently been decreasing - 48.3% in 2001 versus 33.5% in 200253 – Zpráva
2003. The main route of undocumented migrants through the Czech Republic leads from
South Moravian districts toward districts in North Bohemia on the Czech-German
border (Saxony) (measured via both numbers of apprehended persons and in relative
terms when the number of persons per 1 km of a state border is taken into account).
Under “cascade” arrangements, the Czech Republic must accept irregular migrants
On the other hand, the percentage of those who were caught illegally crossing the Czech-Austrian
border – in 2001:19.0% versus 23.5% in 2002, and the Czech-Polish border – in 2001:16.7% versus 23.1% in
2002, has been increasing (Zpráva 2003)
53
54
from neighbouring states if it is proven that they entered the country from the Czech
Republic (as long as other requirements are met, such as time constraints); likewise, it
can return irregular arrivals to other neighbouring countries if it is proven they entered
the Czech Republic from these countries. In the middle of the 1990s, the Czech Republic
received far more “cascaded” migrants than it transferred. Out of all foreigners who
were governed by readmission agreements with neighbouring countries, the Czech had
to accept many more foreigners than they were able to transfer (70-80%). However, the
situation has been improving. This percentage fell to approximately 60% in 2002.
Readmission agreements (signed between the Czech Republic and neighbouring
countries) are an important tool for handling the whole situation on the state border.
According to these agreements, altogether 6,805 persons were involved in “mutual
changes” in 2002. The Czech side accepted 4,121 persons while it further “transferred”
2,684 persons. Obviously, the percentages of immigrants “accepted” by the Czech
Republic compared to the number “transferred” to other states (under the stipulations
of readmission agreeements) have been been diminishing over time (1997 – 28%, 2000 –
21% versus 2002 – 65% - based on Zpráva 2003).
Organised trafficking in (and smuggling of) human beings is an important phenomenon
in the Czech Republic, too. In 2002 it was proven that 16.9% (of all the apprehended
persons – 14,741) used a service of mafia-like organisers. (This share oscillated between
20% and 24% in a period of 1997-2001) – see also text below.
As interviewee No. 8 mentions, currently Chinese prevail among transit migrants in the
Czech Republic (also No. 2) - some 70% head for Germany, 30% for Austria. Whereas
Czech citizens are often involved in trafficking/smuggling migrants across the state border,
higher positions in the whole hierarchy belong to foreigners (organised groups of Chinese,
Vietnamese, Kurds or Post-Soviets - No. 5). Usually, after getting to the territory of the Czech
Republic, irregular migrants have to wait for 1 – 1.5 months (hidden mainly in towns, not
moving, not working, often in terrible conditions) before trying illegally to cross the state
border and move further west. While Indians head mostly for the United Kingdom (and
often pay for all the services – so called a “package deal” – also interview No. 16), Chinese
stay or go (see also No. 5) to the Netherlands, Germany, France or the USA (often they get
into debt and have to work for their “organisers” in a new country for a long time – No. 5);
Vietnamese migration is rather specific – it is mostly a short-term movement for traderelated reasons; very often Vietnamese are trying to reach eastern parts of Germany where
they had established contacts even under communism. Once in the EU, interviewee No. 8
believes in the need to impose heavier penalties (within the process of further
harmonizing given legislation) in the Czech Republic for those who are involved in
trafficking/smuggling in human beings. According to No. 5, routes of smuggling change
depending on which states have gaps in legislation and thereby provide more chances for
success.
54
Communities (like Ukrainians and Vietnamese) which have already been able to create strong bases in the
country do not transit too much, rather they stay in the Czech Republic (interview No. 2)
55
3.6. Conclusions
- Currently, there are no strong “push” factors that would propel mass migration
movements of Czech citizens out of their mother country. On the other hand, three
groups of factors play an important role when searching for strong “pulls” attracting
migrants to the Czech Republic 1) geographical, 2) political and 3) economic. From a
more specific perspective, “national memory,” along with a public opinion,
supranational dimensions (linked with geopolitical orientation), the socio-economic
situation and “migration-specific instruments” significantly affect the migratory
situation.
- The Czech Republic takes care of its compatriots. The most important story is linked
with the resettlement programme of the Czech/Czechoslovakian Governments. During
the Programme of Humanitarian Aid (in the aftermath of the Chernobyl catastrophe),
almost 2,000 Volhynian Czechs were successfully resettled from Ukraine and Belarus
to the Czech Republic between 1991 and 1993.
- As in other developed immigration countries, irregular migrants and undocumented
transit migrants have quickly become typical players on the Czech migration scene. To
assess their quantity and related “qualitative parameters” is a very difficult task.
Combating illegal migration is one of the priorities of the state migration policy and
effective international cooperation in this field has been recognised as an inevitable
must.
56
4. Impact of migration movements on the Czech society
4.1. Impact of labour and economic migration, its relation to other aspects
There are some studies, albeit not many of them at all, enabling one to assess the impact
of labour (economic) immigration upon the Czech society (Drbohlav 1995; Šelepová
1998; Drbohlav 1999; Čermáková 2002; Čermáková / Drbohlav 2002; Drbohlav 2003b).
Furthermore, these studies make it possible, to some extent, to evaluate development
over time.
When trying to explain what key factors were behind economic immigration at the
beginning of the 1990s (1993), several basic concluding results can be quoted from
Drbohlav (1995). The characteristics of “foreigners with work permits” and foreigners
with “trade licenses” were entered into a regression equation as dependent variables.55
With regard to foreigners with work permits, the resulting multiple R-square 0.773
signifies that the model is able to explain reality quite well.56 Obviously, the number of
foreigners with work permits (analysed by Czech districts) clearly tends to be
concentrated in the urban environment and atmosphere, and the variable of “realised
investment” plays the most important role. Thus, for example, the higher the
concentration of legally working foreigners (with work permits), the more a district is
typical of an urban/suburban climate, with its favorable economic development (e.g.
high investments, a low rate of unemployment) and with its “challenging environment”
that copies areas where highly educated and skilled “domestic” inhabitants live as well
as visitors from abroad. On the other hand, this environment is also characteristic of
socio-pathological phenomena (represented, for instance, by the divorce rate –
Drbohlav 1995). As far as foreigners with trade licenses are concerned, the model is not
as successful when compared to the previous one57 (R-square 0.582). Nevertheless, it
was proven that the districts attractive to foreigners holding trade licenses have a higher
ratio of university graduates, rate of immigration (per 10,000 inhabitants, 1992), and
percentage of industrial workers.
Another important fact is worth mentioning. Districts of the Czech Republic that are
attractive in terms of immigrants who come from abroad to settle down (rate of
immigration in 1992) are also pulling internal migration (measured by net migration) –
Drbohlav 1995.
What was the situation like in the second half of the 1990s? When doing the same
exercise – juxtaposing foreigners-holders of work permits (1998) to select economic,
social, demographic and geographical independent variables (using the step wise
regression), to some extent, an important new pattern appears. The R-square is
significantly lower (0.262 – Šelepová 1998) and three main variables explain the spatial
A set of 15 potential predictors that might influence immigrants’ behavior were juxtaposed as
independent variables to these dependent variables – Drbohlav 1995
56
Standardized regression coefficients inform us about how significant the variables within the model
are – see Drbohlav 1995
57
The reason might spring from the modest frequency of this activity at that time and from the lack of a
“close relationship” between place of registration and actual operation within the Czech Republic
55
57
distribution by districts (a “direct relationship” is confirmed vis-à-vis the average wage,
job vacancy and net internal migration). As the author points out, results have
something to do with a process of “spatial hierarchical diffusion,” where not only
Prague and highly urbanized areas, but also other districts start attracting foreign
employees.
Another study sheds light on important mutual relationships among individual
migratory variables and enriches the whole picture with correlation analysis (Drbohlav
1999). “The international migration characteristics (long-term residence permits, work
permits and permanent residence permits for 1996) are relatively closely interrelated
with each other with one exception: no correlation has been found between familybased migration and work permits. On the contrary, the highest correlation has been
found between long-term residence permits and work permits (r=0.605). This is not
surprising at all since there is a link between the two variables (the former should be a
prerequisite for the latter). The relationship between permanent and long-term
residence permits (r=0.471), in other words, between migration realised on economic
grounds and that which is family-based, has also been detected. It has been proven that
there is some „common preference“ of certain districts irrespective of migrants’
declared reasons. This relationship is obvious despite the fact that owners of long-term
residence permits (including both work permits and trade licenses) are much more
concentrated in Prague than those with permanent residence permits. Relationship
between migration characteristics and those reflecting the economic, social,
demographic and geographical milieu differ by individual migration variables.
Regarding work permits (foreign employees) the relation is generally rather weak58 (see
aforementioned Šelepová 1998). On the other hand, as far as permanent and long-term
residence permits are concerned, the ties have rather clear contours. Both
characteristics are correlated with those that represent a rather negative social,
demographic, and ecological climate (e.g. criminality, suicides, abortions, children born
into incomplete families). Nevertheless, regarding the family-based migration these
relationships are much stronger and, in some cases, are exhibited via other links (e.g.
close relations also to mortality indicators). In regional perspective, this configuration
corresponds to the - in many aspects „problematic“ - western and northern border area
of Bohemia59 and, to partly lesser extent, in some features fairly similar, the Ostrava
region. On the other hand, the economically motivated migration represented by longterm residence permits is more, or exclusively, oriented towards the environment
favouring the entrepreneurial climate and activities (higher wages, more
entrepreneurial activities, more highly educated people). Importantly, while familybased migration is not related to unemployment, the economically motivated migration
grows with a decreasing unemployment rate (r=-0.327). The economically motivated
migration stream is also directly correlated with the most important internal migration
flow (of those between 20 and 34 years). It is no wonder that these parameters are, inter
alia, characteristic of the main metropolitan centre – the capital of Prague. In other
words, in this perspective, the economically motivated foreign immigration helps
propel motors of transformation processes in the most important „poles of
development“ (Drbohlav 1999).
It is hardly possible to find some typical “structural and/or zonal features/patterns” (Drbohlav 1999)
This region is also typical of a high level of urbanization, a lower proportion of those claiming Czech
nationality and a higher proportion of those who were not born in the given regions
58
59
58
The picture is completed by an analysis from the 2000s (see Čermáková 2002 and
Čermáková / Drbohlav 2002). The results of the multiple stepwise regression model are
presented in table 37.
Table 37. Basic characteristics of regression equations for explaining spatial
distribution of foreigners – holders of visas issued for more than 90 days and
holders of permanent residence permits by districts, the Czech Republic, 2000
Dependent variable
Coefficient of
determination
Independent
variable
Wages
Net migration
Ethnic diversity
Vacant jobs
Number of
entrepreneurs
Economically active
population in
services
Economically active
population in
science/research
Foreigners per
1,000 inhabitants
of the Czech district
Foreigners with
visa for more than
90 days — per 1,000
inhabitants of a
district (economic
migration)
Foreigners with
permanent
residence permit
— per 1,000
inhabitants of a
district
(family-based
migration)
0,723
0,641
0,547
Standardized
regression
coefficients
(Beta weights)
0,553
0,320
0,275
0,167
Standardized
regression
coefficients
(Beta weights)
0,631
0,386
*
0,183
Standardized
regression
coefficients
(Beta weights)
*
0,217
0,545
*
0,176
*
0,367
*
*
0,243
*
*
-0,200
Source: Čermáková 2002, Čermáková / Drbohlav 2002
Note: *The variable was not selected by the multiple stepwise regression as significant enough to
contribute to explaining the process.
Wages - average wage/salary per district (2001).
Net migration (foreigners with a long-term residence permit - before 2000, a visa for more than
90 days - after 2000, and a permanent residence permit), per 1,000 inhabitants of a district, 19962001.
Ethnic diversity (number of inhabitants with other than Czech, Moravian and Silesian
national/ethnic identity per 100 inhabitants of a district, as of March 2001).
Vacant jobs (per 1,000 economically active population of a district, 2001).
Number of entrepreneurs (per 1,000 inhabitants of a district, 2001).
59
Economically active population in services (per 1,000 inhabitants of a district, as of March 2001).
Economically active population in science/research (per 1,000 inhabitants of a district, as of
March 2001).
As the values of the coefficients of determination indicate, the models are able to
explain reality quite well, albeit not, by far, to an exhaustive level. Models account for
72%, 64% and 55%, respectively, of all variability. Logically, the spatial distribution of
foreign immigrants (including economic and family-based migration) is better explained
than the two individual migratory components. Also, it was proven that more spatially
concentrated economic migration is easier to explain than more complex family-based
migration. To briefly summarize results, economic immigration has been propelled by
good economic opportunities, namely high wages/salaries (out of three models the
highest coefficient of all), vacant jobs and an environment in which immigrants have
already established themselves. Hence, in relation to economic migrants, it was
confirmed that besides the already detected importance of “poles of economic
development,” “compatriots’ nets” (with their supportive roles) have been important
factors in attracting immigrants to and within the Czech Republic. The relationship
between family-based migration and “economic parameters” is not so strong. Whereas
there is a positive relationship between economic migration and the number of
entrepreneurs and the size of the economically active population in services, the
relationship between economic migration and the economically active population in
science/research is negative. As it is in the case of economic migrants, also the familybased migration is significantly influenced by existing networks between those who
newly immigrate and those who “have already been there”. In addition, another factor
seems to be very important - great ethnic diversity (mainly tied to “old” national/ethnic
minorities). When translating the results into geographical space, different patterns are,
to some extent, linked with the two different migratory types. While rather highly
urbanized zones (Prague, etc.) along with some other highly industrial centres (e.g.
Mladá Boleslav with the Škoda company) attract economic migrants above all, the more
heterogeneous regional picture is related to family-based migration. Besides other
places, the western, northern, and also partly south-eastern border areas with a very
weakly established “cultural identity” and rather problematic social, demographic and,
in some places, ecological climate, have been gaining migrants under the family-based
migration umbrella. This result is in harmony with the results of previous studies (e.g.
Drbohlav 1999).
Čermáková (1992) further specifies the picture when searching for independent
variables explaining spatial distribution patterns (by Czech districts) among individual
selected ethnic immigrant groups (again the stepwise regression model was used). The
models had rather weak explanatory power for the Slovak, Polish, Vietnamese and
Chinese ethnic groups (coefficients of determination were lower than 0,260). Relatively
good results, however, were obtained when analyzing Americans, Ukrainians, Germans,
and Russians (holders of visas issued for more than 90 days and holders of permanent
residence permits were together included, districts of the Czech Republic, 2000):
- Ukrainians (the coefficient of determination - CD: 0,557); independent variables: wages
– standardised regression coefficient – SRC: (0.522), rate of unemployment (-0.304),
economically active persons in services (0.205);
60
- Russians (CD: 0.455); independent variables: number of entrepreneurs (SRC: 0.427),
economically active persons in services (0.407);
- Germans (CD: 0.502); independent variables: ethnic diversity (SRC: 0.418) – see table
37, completed construction of apartments (0.354), number of entrepreneurs (0.345),
direct foreign investment (0.274);
- Americans (CD: 0.617); independent variables: wages (SRC: 0.490), number of
entrepreneurs (0.372), completed construction of apartments (0.246).
It has been proven that different conditions and different spatial patterns are tied to
economic migration on one hand, and to family-based migration on the other. However,
when analysing these two types together, a more powerful and decisive role is played
by economic immigration (it predetermines conditions as a whole – see table 37). While
spatial aspects will further be elaborated upon below, it has been found that immigrants
(and especially economically-driven ones) head for highly urbanized areas (with all the
typical features and independent characteristics indicated above). Economic
immigration does help propel motors of transformation processes in the most important
urban poles of development and it is the most important impact of immigration upon
Czech society.
On the other hand, family-based migration is more dispersed, more complex and,
hence, more difficult for interpretation. Nevertheless, what seems to be clear, and in
harmony with the theories as well, is that besides “poles of economic development”,
the “compatriots’ nets”60 (with their supportive role) should not be omitted when trying
to explain international migration to and within the current Czech Republic.
Nevertheless, interviewee No. 1 mentions that the impact is not too important since, so far,
the whole number of immigrants in the country has been rather small. This same opinion
was expressed in a different context by No. 12. Interviewee No. 2 combines economic
impacts foreigners have upon the Czech society rather with a microeconomic level.
Another important impact of economic immigration touches on the Czech labour
market. The ethnic immigrant groups, in accordance with their own strategies, have
found (in harmony with their specific spatial concentration patterns - see below)
specific niches on the Czech labour market, thereby reshaping its previous contours.
This situation concerns three ethnic immigrant groups most of all – Ukrainians,
Vietnamese and Chinese. Although the picture of their economic activities in the Czech
Republic is becoming more stratified (see table 38), one automatically combines a
Ukrainian with an auxiliary worker in construction, a Vietnamese with a vendor (cheap
clothes, electronics, vegetables/fruits), and a Chinese with an owner of a restaurant or
an organiser of a wholesale distribution (see the same goods as regards Vietnamese).
60
Functioning as an urban enclave where one can live or as a zone which is easily reachable
61
Table 38. Individual important segments of immigrant labour force in the Czech
Republic - Ukrainians, Vietnamese, Chinese (documented and
undocumented), at the end of the 1990s (simplified)
Ethnic group/
Region of origin
Form of stay,
type of work
Ukrainians
Work permits –
individual,
trade licenses,
illegally;
manual work,
auxiliary work;
mainly construction
but also industry
(e.g. food-processing,
textile), agriculture
Trade licenses,
illegally; small-scale
market
entrepreneurs/
sellers; buying and
selling clothes
and electronics
Illegally, via trade
or entrepreneurial
companies;
representatives
of firms in China and
small-businessmen;
import, distribution
(wholesale) and retail
of apparel, shoes
and light industrial
goods
Vietnamese
Chinese
Social and
demographic
structure, social
relations
Poor; workers,
(relatively high
educational level
purposely
undervalued),
young, males;
frequent trips
to mother
country
Quasi-Middle
class
Strong kinship
ties and regional
social networks,
relatively frequent
trips to mother
country
Range/
Regional pattern
Throughout the
whole country,
especially Prague,
Central Bohemia,
large cities
Throughout the
whole country,
especially western
border zone near Germany
and Austria,
large cities
Prague
Source: Based on Drbohlav 2003b
Note: This characterization is not based on any representative survey research. It follows from
the author’s personal experience, through consulting on the issue with selected experts and
through some original, primordial views on migratory and residence patterns of some immigrant
communities in Prague/Czech Republic (see e.g. Wang 1998; Chan 1998; Drbohlav 1997a). The
indicated facts stress only the most significant trends; omitting information does not necessarily
mean that, in fact, there are no clearer trends in relation to selected aspects and given ethnic
immigration groups. Rather, so far, they have not been tackled or simply detected and widely
publicised. In order to understand the functioning of chain migration form the main source
countries better, systematic research is needed – possibly with the indications above as a starting
point.
62
Interviewee No. 1 and No. 13 express an idea that foreigners – small businessmen - should
concentrate on matters in which they traditionally were involved and which represent their
“cultural heritage” – like ethnic restaurants, ethnic food (including growing given
products), hand-made products, etc.
4.2. Economic effects of migration
Regarding the availability of both primary statistical sources and secondary sources
(analytical studies, research reports, papers, books, etc.), perhaps no one in the Czech
Republic can find an area that is as neglected as the Czech migratory field. In fact, there
are no important data at one’s disposal on, for example, foreigners’61 remittances, taxes,
social security payments, savings, investment strategies, etc. Though one can find some
indirect evidence of the activities foreigners carry out in the Czech Republic (for
example, capital flows, foreign direct investments), it is often very hard to reasonably
relate them to the real migration flows and to their impacts upon the host society. In this
context, let us only pinpoint one pattern that can be mapped out and described. When
taking into account both numbers of individual foreign companies/firms and numbers
of foreigners-holders of a trade license (small entrepreneurs doing their business) in
relative terms (per 100 Czech inhabitants) by Czech districts in 2002, a clear East-West
gradient will appear. Whereas districts located in eastern parts of the country (in fact,
the whole Moravia and some districts in eastern and southern Bohemia) have very low
figures (usually between 0.1 and 0.4), Prague (3.6) and central Bohemia (Mladá Boleslav
1.7, Praha-západ 1.7, and Praha-východ 1.6), Pilsen (1.8) and some districts in the west
(particularly Cheb 2.9, Karlovy Vary 2.4, and Tachov 2.1) and, to some extent, also the
city of Brno (1.5) are highly influenced by direct foreign economic activities. However,
one has to keep in mind that these figures say nothing about the real “qualitative and
structural parameters” of such an impact.
As for this topic, interviewee No. 1 points out that foreign small businessmen do not usually
contribute to new technologies, financial sources, or employment (new job opportunities)
in the Czech Republic. Often, they only sell their work or goods of poor quality.
On the other hand, No. 11 reminds us that sometimes foreigners bring with them special
artisan’s abilities that we miss entirely, and she gives examples of well functioning foreign
companies that started from scratch (e.g. STROM - TELECOM).
4.3. Non-economic effects of migration
Mainly due to the great share of “circulators“ among foreigners and immigrants in the
Czech Republic (short-term or long-term stays rather than a settlement), and because
only a short time has elapsed since “the New Era” started, some migratory features,
otherwise expected, have not yet developed: For example, ethnic minorities have not
created very significant areas of concentration within cities or regions thus far (see
below, with the exception of the Russian community in Karlovy Vary), and not many
important ethnic social or political structures have evolved which would “unite, unify
and organise“ new immigrants in the country (Drbohlav 2003b). Accordingly, the
cultural contributions, demographic changes, social structure changes and the like
related to immigrants, and their impact upon the Czech society (counting 10,200,000
61
Foreigners as individual persons
63
inhabitants) is rather small. There is no nation-wide immigrants’ influence over these
issues; only partially on the local level. Table 39 shows some demographic parameters
that prove some of the above-mentioned facts.
Table 39. Selected demographic events – foreigners in the Czech Republic, 1997–2001
Demographic events / year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Marriages
Male foreigners -female Czech
Female foreigner -male Czech
Both foreigners
3,131
1,927
58
2,873
1,666
90
2,793
2,060
90
3,092
2,160
61
2,672
1,691
54
Divorces
Male foreigners -female Czech
Female foreigner -male Czech
Both foreigners
Births
Deaths
Abortions
552
265
43
650
312
2,002
614
308
41
941
317
2,356
646
281
38
1,032
267
2,634
643
315
46
1,040
285
2,476
643
366
24
891
252
2,576
Source: Cizinci 2003
Despite some problems interpreting results,62 Seidlová (2003) introduces interesting data
on immigrants’ demographic behavior. The foreign population as a whole (those legally
staying for more than 1 year in 2001) has higher marriage and abortion rates vis-à-vis the
Czech population (in 2000), more or less the same divorce rate, and lower fertility
(about one half) and mortality rates (about ten times lower – see more in Seidlová 2003).
It again only reflects very different age structures of the both populations (see table 23
and graph 14 – Appendix III).
One can expect that once the Czech Republic has joined the EU (during which time
more immigrants will arrive in the country, but those who are already here will begin
to settle down), the impact of immigrants upon Czech society (its social, economic,
political, demographic, geographical etc. structures) will become more palpable. Again,
there are good reasons to suppose that the contours of such changes will follow
patterns well known in the current Western Europe.
Of course, the foreigners’ impact upon the Czech society is conditioned by economic
aspects; namely, whether they only “produce,” or also “reproduce,” themselves in the
territory of the country. The former strategy is typical of the Eastern immigrant inflow63
(Ukrainians above all), while those coming from the West and the Far East live “normal
lives,” and communicate with the Czech majority and their own community more
intensively. This situation is also related to the living standard, which is significantly
She rightly mentions that considering immigrants’ demographic structures as only “one item” is very
simplified since it is composed of several internally different ethnic subpopulations
63
Very often these immigrants try to save as much of the money they earn as possible, thereby supporting
their families in their mother countries (e.g. Drbohlav 1997a). This sort of strategy cuts them off, to large
extent, from “complex communication” with both the majority population and their other compatriots
62
64
lower in the former case than in the latter. Chinese restaurants (mainly in Prague and
other cities), the firmly established North American community in Prague, and the
Russian community in Karlovy Vary represent important manifestations of the new and
distinctive socio-cultural milieu that was brought to the country.
Interviewee No. 10 emphasises a bunch of very positive traits through which foreigners
often enrich the majority population (e.g., Kurds or Armenians). No. 11 does the same.
4.4. Illegal employment and exploitation
Below we shortly present results of a qualitative study done in 199864 (Lupták / Drbohlav
1998). It summarizes some of the most important impacts that foreigners (holders of
work permits and trade licenses) had upon Czech society. However, many mentioned
issues are general in their character and touch labour activities of irregular migrants
and their impact upon society, too.65 Despite the fact that the research was carried out
in 1998, one can dare to argue that, to a large extent, its results are still valid today.
Since the “Eastern” foreign labour force significantly dominates over the “Western” one,
the respondents’ evaluations implicitly relate to the former immigrant community.
Ukrainians themselves play a very important role and “supply” the issues with many
problems.
Foreigners as employees
Negative aspects of the issue with respect to the Czech Republic
The majority of respondents mentioned the fact that a very cheap foreign labour force
decreases the price of work and salaries/wages on the Czech labour market. Thus, by
having a low minimum wage, relatively high social subsidies (including when
unemployed), and a minimal income level66 for unemployed Czech persons, the Czech
labour force is, by not accepting low wage jobs, being displaced from the labour market
64
Between March and June 1998, we carried out a questionnaire survey tackling the issue of what were
hot and pressing problems linked with the foreign labour force and its operation in the territory of the
Czech Republic. 86 district (including the Prague district) job and trade centres were contacted via
questionnaire. 54 directors of district job centres throughout the country reacted to the questionnaire and
provided us with an evaluation of the situation. 20 directors of district trade centres throughout the
country responded and evaluated the situation. Also, 9 representatives of local municipalities (which are
responsible for issuing trade licenses to “free businesses” - in our case, mainly buying and selling goods)
sent their opinions as well
The questionnaire itself, designed for officers of these “regional” institutions, was structured into three
interconnected blocks. Only one key answer and respective questions are selected for this report: “How
are foreigners’ work activities (those with job permits or job licenses) reflected in the territory of your
district? What are the negative and positive aspects of these activities? Please, if possible, mention issues
related to economic, social, cultural, psychological and other environments”.
Anonymity of the respondents was guaranteed. The questionnaire survey was supported by directors of
the respective departments of both the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and the Ministry of Industry
and Trade
65
Indeed, it is often very difficult to separate legal activities from those that break the law (see the chapter
on irregular migration)
66
In other words, there is no big difference between earned money and that which one gets when
unemployed
65
in some particular occupations - mainly unqualified industrial branches. Furthermore,
the quality of the Czech labour environment is eroded by the willingness of foreigners
to work hard, to work longer than usual (over the weekend, during night shifts), and to
work under “normally” unacceptable conditions (i.e. without breaks or refreshments,
under bad and un-hygienic conditions, with limited or completely absent safety
measures that do not correspond to the labour code).68 If the Czech labour force cannot
or refuses to compete, the rate of unemployment of Czech citizens in some regions
might increase. Also, firms that employ cheap foreigners from the „East“ are at an
advantage over other firms, which employ only domestic labour when competing for
various contracts.
67
It was stressed that there is a serious danger, stemming from the fact that relying on a
foreign labour force may hinder the process of transformation of the Czech economy
(delay structural changes). It may not appear so in the short-term, but over the longterm, it will be more advantageous to finance the modernization of productive
technologies rather than finance labour-intensive sectors. The following negative
aspects were mentioned by some of the respondents as well: employers of a foreign
labour force who avoid taxes; illegal workers who avoid taxes, insurance, and other
obligatory payments; the export of foreign savings abroad (i.e. not spending money in
the Czech Republic); connections between foreign labour activities and some sociopathological phenomena such as criminality, drugs, prostitution, creating mafias and
corruption; furthermore, the spread of infectious diseases as a result of the poor and
primitive housing conditions in which foreigners often live.
Positive Aspects of the issue with respect to the Czech Republic
Foreigners fill job occupations that lack workers among the Czech labour force – these
positions include unskilled jobs in construction, textile, food, and wood industries, as
well as agriculture (also in the peripheral areas with limited transport networks).
Foreigners help the Czech economy by filling positions as welders, experienced
seamstresses, machinists, tool and dye makers, founders, bricklayers, carpenters, metal
cutters, etc. Generally, there is a lack of representatives for these occupations on the
Czech labour market and, so far, a training system has not been established that could
produce enough workers to fill all the positions necessary and available in the current
market (at present, supply does not meet demand in some occupations). The following
positive aspects were also mentioned by some respondents: increasing wages for Czech
workers in firms that are owned by westerners or employ a “western” foreign labour
force, limiting inflation by paying low wages to foreigners, greater productivity in firms
that employ foreigners, and the enrichment of Czech society through new cultures,
languages and experiences.
It is important to establish the right relationship between minimum wage and social subsidies, because
an extremely small difference in these two systems stimulates foreign immigration and does not provide
incentives for some categories of Czech citizens to work. Thus, an imbalance in this relationship
undermines restrictive immigration policies and does not protect the Czech labour market from foreign
immigration
68
Nevertheless, respondents No. 11 and No.1 also add that this might function as a stimulus for the Czech
labour force to work more efficiently with higher productivity than at present
67
66
Foreigners as small businesspersons
Obviously, there are two different types of foreign businessmen that dominate in the
Czech Republic, and two particular ethnic communities represent them: the Vietnamese
and the Ukrainians. These two groups were mentioned most frequently by the
respondents when informing us about problems they experience in their
regions/districts/settlements.
1) Vietnamese: They are well known as small scale market entrepreneurs, buying and
selling clothes and electronics throughout the country (see also above). When
evaluating their role in the Czech society and the economy, negative evaluations
prevailed. The provision of cheap goods that could be purchased by the lower social
strata of Czech society was the only important positive aspect linked to this
community and pinpointed by all respondents. The negative features were quite
often specified as: breaking laws and regulations that concern taxes, insurance, the
import of goods, trademarks, hygienic conditions, returns, etc. Respondents pointed
out that, for many reasons, these negative aspects are very difficult to prove. The
disorder and unpleasant aesthetic arrangement of Vietnamese goods was criticized.
In summary, in the “administration’s eyes” (see below a chapter on public opinion),
Vietnamese are seen as rather unwelcome - by using nefarious practices they
undermine the competitive market and ruin the efforts of Czech small businessmen
and even some Czech firms (textile producers were mentioned in this context).
2) Ukrainians: Ukrainian “independent” quasi-businessmen are those workers who
were provided with trade licenses but whose working regime, in reality, resembles
that of “classical” employees (one can also speak about “hidden employees”- see
above). They are active in similar occupations (they are “unqualified employees” in
various sectors of the economy) and work in groups for a Ukrainian mediator who
organises their work, signs a contract with Czech partners, and, consequently, works
with “his team” and a Czech employer. Despite the fact that such kinds of Ukrainian
firms do not own anything, they are involved in large construction projects, textile
production, machinery, locksmith’s works, etc. The firm sends employees to the
workplaces of domestic companies while the Czech employer does not have to pay
any taxes and insurance payments (the workers are not his employees) - he pays only
the Ukrainian mediator for the work. Hence, the “bill” is cheaper and, furthermore,
there are no costs for housing. Low work productivity or any small offence is solved
by replacing the Ukrainian worker. The Ukrainian mediator also does not pay taxes
since he follows agreements on double taxation. Therefore, it is impossible to
persecute him from any angle. Everything surrounding the business activities of the
Ukrainians is well camouflaged, including, for example, the provision of false
information (data/addresses) when arranging documents at offices (see above). The
whole process is often even more complicated since the Ukrainian firm has contracts
with other Ukrainian firms, which also operate in the Czech territory. Lack of control
leads to a situation where often many obligatory demands are not met and illegality
is openly practiced. Ukrainian workers who usually arrive as “tourists” (with
vouchers) to the Czech Republic are heavily, nevertheless, “voluntarily” exploited
(poor working conditions, low wages, seizure of their documents by a mediator, etc.).
Thus, a modern form of slavery is flourishing. Increasingly, other organised forms as
to how to do a business in the Czech Republic are being practiced, and Ukrainians
67
are playing a very important role in these activities - e.g. mainly via public trading
companies and limited liability companies (see more in Kroupa et al. 1997).
Regarding some other negative points in terms of the host country, the respondents
repeated similar aspects as already mentioned when characterizing foreign employees
(see above). Last but not least, because of the “isolationist policies” of immigrant groups
that spring from the temporary, circular character of the migration itself, these
foreigners have a very limited possibility to enrich Czech society with a new culture,
language and experience. Nevertheless, respondents also expressed some positive
attributes. Indeed, as in the case of foreign employees, foreign businessmen or “quasibusinessmen” sometimes fulfill occupations that are not attractive for Czech citizens
(unqualified, unskilled jobs in agriculture, some industrial branches and services as
well). Furthermore, due to the above mentioned activities, paying low wages to
foreigners hampers inflation, and there is greater productivity in firms that employ
foreigners.
As has already been mentioned in the chapter on irregular migration, between 2000 and
2002, 22,355, 18,309, and 19,573, respectively, foreigners were caught violating the Act on
a Stay on the territory of the Czech Republic in interior – Zpráva 2003. Those foreigners
apprehended by “internal controls” within the interior of the republic, or when trying
illegally to cross the state border through a border crossing69 (usually without valid
documents), represent a huge percentage of the pool of irregular economic migrants.
The data for 2002 proves how significant the Ukrainian immigrant community of labour
migrants in the Czech Republic is (Zpráva 2003). Out of 19,573 irregular immigrants
apprehended by the authorities, 78% were Ukrainians.
As in other developed host countries, labour immigrants with and without a work
permit are both willing to work hard and prone to exploitation by their employers. (See
also interview No. 8 where the respondent points out that foreigners are exploited by
Czechs through the provision of poor, but also relatively expensive, housing.) The
exploitation of Ukrainians on the Czech labour market, falling as they do within the
“Eastern” category of migrants, has been documented several times. Let us quote only
some examples from three following studies - Drbohlav (1997), Drbohlav at al. (1999)
and Křečková / Tůmová et al. (2003).
According to a survey carried out in 1995 and 1996,70 the type and conditions of work for
Ukrainians, their workload and their earnings are significantly worse compared to the
primary sector (the majority of the population). For example, 53% of respondents
worked and/or stayed in the Czech Republic in an irregular situation71 at the time of the
These persons are not recorded within the statistics on illegal crossing the state border (see above)
A questionnaire survey successfully targeting 98 and 94 respondents, respectively, in Prague and its
vicinity; the non-probability sample making use of main immigrants concentrations and, at the same time,
a sort of a “snowball” method (Drbohlav 1997a)
71
Though irregular labour immigrants are the most prone to exploitation, it does not mean at all that
exploitation does occur in immigrants’ legal working activities
69
70
68
study: their activity was not registered.72 73% of the respondents worked as unqualified,
unskilled workers or auxiliary workers; 62% worked more than 12 hours a day; 40%
evaluated their working conditions as hard and some of them even severe, below the
dignity of a human being; 51% had no days off and earnings were low in relation to the
number of hours they worked (80% earned 8,000 Kč a month or less); and, moreover,
85% stated that their earnings did not increase, but stagnated over time (Drbohlav
1997a).
The second survey was carried out in 1999, and in terms of the methods used (including
a sampling method) it, more or less, followed the first survey (Drbohlav et al. 1999;
Drbohlav / Janská / Šelepová 2001). In line with expected hypotheses, this research
exercise also proved the exploitation of Ukrainian labour immigrants. For example, 31%
of respondents worked and/or stayed in the Czech Republic in an irregular situation
(this was significantly more typical of younger rather than older immigrants); 68%
earned less than 10,000 Kč a month; and 82% worked between 8 and 12 hours a day.
Interviews provided in a survey that was carried out in 2002 among 645 respondents (a
non-representative sample that was taken throughout the country among those who
have stayed there for more than 1 year) also revealed the exploitation of Ukrainian
workers. It was found out that 33% of respondents work between 11 and 12 hours a day,
their salaries are pretty low - 49 Czech crowns per hour, and 57% of them expressed fear
of losing the money they earn (due to mafia-like structures – Křečková / Tůmová et al.
2003).
4.5. Public opinion and perception of migrants and migration: discrimination,
xenophobia, and other forms of violence against migrants
In addition to historical patterns, the Czech Republic’s geographical and geopolitical
location, and its socio-economic situation, information channels (see also table 34) also
shape public opinion and perceptions of migrants/migration. If one realises that: 1)
“CEE countries have been at the historical cross-roads of invasion, migrations, and the
rise and fall of empires” (Castles 1995) and that 2) the Czech Republic experienced more
than forty years of “overall isolation” (inter alia, a situation that drastically limited
normal international migration movements and immigrants’ settlement) within the
communist era, then, accordingly, the Czech model of national identity is one of trying
to maintain ethnic purity and cultural homogeneity rather than pluralism (as is also the
case of Germany and Austria – Castles 1995). The fear of having foreigners or strong
ethnic minorities in the country is omnipresent (Drbohlav 2001, Rabušic / Burjánek
forthcoming). Interviewee No. 13 emphasises that due to all the given historical
circumstances, this is quite a natural phenomenon.. This fact is reflected in public as
well as in official policies, but predominately under the practices of the state (see
Drbohlav 2003a).
Furthermore, some of these practices are dictated by the process of harmonizing the
72
“It has been proven that particularly young, single, childless persons, working in industry and ‘other
branches’ in Ukraine (except for agriculture and construction) and coming from Ukrainian towns with
between 5,000 and 49,000 inhabitants tend to be among Ukrainian workers operating in Czechia more
significantly linked to irregular status than others” (Drbohlav 1997a)
69
Czech Republic’s migratory policies with EU migratory policies and practices. This
xenophobia affects many different areas of life (the Czech majority are worried mostly
about the possibility of increasing crime rates, conflicts between different cultures, and
growing unemployment – Nedomová / Kostelecký 1997; Postoje 2001). On the other
hand, interviewee No. 15 evaluates the situation, even in the European context, as not
very serious, because there is no important political party on the scene behind such
attitudes.
Based on an international comparison, xenophobia in the Czech Republic is more
apparent than in some other Central/Eastern European countries (see slightly different
results in Wallace 1999; ČR 2000; Danielová 2002; Rabušic / Burjánek forthcoming). The
following examples illustrate how xenophobia is reflected in Czech society. This
information springs from surveys on xenophobia and the experience of immigrants,
conducted by the Centre for Opinion Polls73:
1) Only 55% of the respondents would permit all foreigners who are in jeopardy of their
life to stay in the Czech Republic (11% would not permit anyone to stay under such
conditions); 28% would permit foreigners who are persecuted for political, racial or
ethnic reasons to stay (21% would not enable anyone to stay under such conditions);
and 11% would enable foreigners who are searching for better living conditions to
stay (50% would permit nobody to stay under such conditions) (as of May 2001, O
názorech 2001).
2) 61% of respondents think that immigrants should adjust to “our” living style as much
as possible; 5% argue that they should have a chance to live entirely according to
their habits and customs (as of May 2001, O vztahu 2001).
3) 8% proclaim that, in the long run, providing asylum seekers with asylum and a
long-term stay in the country represent a threat to Czech society, but 10% think it is
an asset (33% think it is neither a threat nor an asset) (as of May 2001, Postoje II 2001).
4) 24% are decidedly against having an asylum centre close to their house/apartment;
31% are rather against it; 3% do not mind at all; and 29% would agree to having one
(as of May 2001, O názorech 2001).
5) 38% had good relations with only some of the foreigners who work in the Czech
Republic, 21% to almost none of them. 10% declared having good relations with all of
them, and 31% to having good relations with most of them. (as of May 2001, O vztahu
2001).
73
Data from the Centre for Opinion Polls (CVVM within the Sociological Institute of the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic, the former name was the Institute for Opinion Polls which was affiliated
with the Czech Statistical Office - IVVM) are used here above all. They monitor the situation in the given
field from many different aspects regularly, mostly on a year-to-year basis (thus, there is often a possibility
to evaluate development over time). The samples are, to large extent, “representative” (usually more than
1,000 respondents spread throughout the whole country) since a quota sampling method is applied
(quota characteristics: age, sex, educational level). Besides CVVM, one can also mention other agencies
dealing with the issue: e.g. STEM (Názory 2003) or AISA; see also Gabal 1998
70
These general results do not show differences within the population. When analyzing the
given results more deeply (internal materials of the CVVM), very clear tendencies have
appeared. In fact, negative attitudes towards foreigners (be it any category) were more
typical of those with a basic education, auxiliary workers, unemployed persons,
pensioners, those with pretty bad or very bad living standards (measured via a “subjective
self-evaluation”), and sympathizers with the Communist Party. On the other hand, those
with rather good and very good living standards (again, measured via a “subjective selfevaluation”), an occupation category of “other employees,” businessmen, universityeducated persons, and voters for the Civic Democratic Party held much more proimmigrant attitudes (statistically significant differences).74 A breakdown by other variables
like sex, age or regional units would call for more detailed analysis and specific comments
(also in relation to attitudes towards individual ethnic groups) that would go beyond the
scope of this report (see more in Danielová 2002). To summarize (in accordance with
Danielová 2002), inhabitants of North Moravia and South Bohemia regions and Prague have
the most positive attitudes toward ethnic minority groups. The most negative attitudes are
characteristic of those who live in West, North and Central Bohemia regions75. Worse
relations are tied to smaller settlements (with less than 2,000 inhabitants) and to larger cities
(with more than 100,000 inhabitants). Those between the ages of 15 and 19 have, on the
whole, the worst (most negative) attitude toward ethnic minority groups. On the other
hand, seniors – older than 60 – have relatively good relations. Also, believers tend to be
much more tolerant toward foreigners than non-believers (Danielová 2002).
It seems that attitudes held by the majority population toward old ethnic and new
immigrant ethnic minorities in their country are, to some extent, based on stereotypes,
though some opinions, feelings and approaches can change over time with the changing
socio-economic or political situation (especially when some of the ethnic groups play an
important role in these changes - Drbohlav forthcoming). “Ethnic stereotypes” are also
typical of the Czech society (see O vztahu 2001). Whereas Slovaks (as a minority living in
the Czech Republic) are, out of the selected ethnic groups, by far the most popular for the
Czech majority,76 followed by Poles, Vietnamese, citizens of the former Soviet Union,77
citizens of the Balkans, and especially Romas belong to the most unpopular ones (table 40,
graph 19 – Appendix III). As a whole, the popularity of individual ethnic groups vis-à-vis the
Czech population does not change too much over time. Empathy for some of the ethnic
groups peaked between 1997 and 1999,79 and since then has been slightly decreasing.
When analysing individual issues (points 1-5) various combinations came out. Hence, it does not mean
that all the representatives of anti-immigrant or pro-immigrant attitudes appeared within the all individual
studied issues (points 1-5)
A share of respondents having bad attitude towards Romas strongly correlates with a spatial
concentration of Roma ethnic group (r=0.9 - Danielová 2002)
No wonder if one realize how close the Czechs and Slovaks are to each other mainly because of having
lived in one common state for almost 75 years
This reaction is the result of two main reasons: 1) a general negative attitude in Czech society toward all
things “Soviet” as a result of the unforgettable occupation of 1968, and 2) the tendency to connect
“Soviets” to specific forms of “mafia criminality” which, from time to time, have been significantly
manifested in the territory of the Czech Republic. Mafia-like activities are often attributed to citizens of the
Balkan states as well
78
One of the important reasons might be that, generally, positive economic development goes against antiimmigration feelings and attitudes. Rather positive attitudes toward foreigners followed a relatively good
shape during the Czech (“booming”) economy and improvements in the living standard of the domestic
population at that time. Both grew significantly between 1994 and 1997 (more in Drbohlav 2002)
74
71
However, the relationship is not “linear” in its character and still shows improvement
over time. When comparing the beginning of the 1990s with the beginning of the 2000s,
overall perceptions of individual ethnic migrant groups have become more positive
(except toward citizens of the Balkans). Although the relationship is rather complicated
and complex, perceptions of immigrants in the Czech society will improve given enough
time and interactions between migrants and the majority of the population (see also the
same in Germany – Krätke 2003, or Austria – Hintermann 2001). Also, interviews No. 1,
No. 10, No. 11 support this analysis. Another survey (opinion poll) measures the
popularity of a different set of ethnic groups (Náš 2003). One of the latest studies reveals
that besides Slovaks and Poles, citizens of France, Sweden and the United Kingdom are
also very popular among the Czech majority. In contrast, Kurds, Palestinians and
Afghanis are the most unpopular (in addition to Ukrainians).
Table 40. Good/bad attitude towards selected ethnicities – population of the Czech
Republic, 1993–2001, in %
Relation to: / time
Slovaks
Poles
Germans
Jews
Vietnamese
Citizens of former
USSR
Citizens of
Balkan
Romas
1993
621/82
39/12
35/21
33/7
13/39
-
1994 1995 1996
65/7 66/5 69/5
37/11 39/8 43/7
35/20 33/22 33/19
36/7 34/6 35/5
14/33 9/39 12/41
-
1997
70/4
48/5
39/18
37/5
20/28
1998 1999 2000 2001
74/4 77/2 71/3 74/3
53/5 57/3 52/3 53/4
45/13 45/14 41/16 42/16
43/5 43/5 36/6 34/8
24/26 21/29 18/34 18/32
11/36 11/44
13/43 10/50
9/55
11/46 12/45
12/40 10/36 10/33 9/44
12/41 11/44
9/48
11/44
9/45
3/77
7/62 12/52
9/55
8/61
8/60
5/68
5/69
5/69
Source: O vztahu 2001
Note: 1Good and rather good attitudes, 2bad and rather bad attitudes.
Prejudice against the Roma ethnic group is a persistently recurring attitude. However,
this is a traditional rather than new ethnic community.79 It should be noted that the
aforementioned unpopularity complicates the acceptance of migrants because, for
example, many Romas are seen as “Slovak” migrants, large numbers of labour migrants
come from the former Soviet Union and refugees and asylum seekers often arrive from
the Balkan countries (see text and tables above). “However, we have to bear in mind
that these were surveys of opinions rather than practices. In contrast to this, we can cite
the examples of Czech solidarity with immigrants/ refugees in the positive relationship
between local populations and settled refugees in Czech municipalities. For example, in
fact, no serious antagonism by a local majority group towards settled refugees80 in Czech
municipalities has been reported so far” (Drbohlav 2001).
As a rule (with Romas being the only exception), national minorities in the Czech Republic (those who
perceive themselves to be of a different ethnic/national origin but have already been naturalized and
gained Czech citizenship) have already been fully integrated or assimilated into the majority society.
Accordingly, there have been no problems at all in the co-existence of the majority with representatives
of national minorities in the Czech Republic
80
However, this is not true when speaking about asylum seekers. Recently, some protest campaigns
against them (their presence and behaviour) have occurred in some towns where asylum centers are
located
79
72
Racial conflicts might become a highly dangerous phenomenon with possible serious
social consequences for the Czech Republic. Indeed, unlike in other western developed
democracies, there is no continuous, historic experience of long-term coexistence
between racially and ethnically different communities. Until now, the manifestation of
right wing extremism, associated mainly with young people, has been limited to small
groups and has not spread through the population in a way that could destabilise public
safety in any of the Czech regions (Drbohlav 2001)81.
The CVVM survey maps situations in which a grudge is held against other persons of a
different national/ethnic and racial background (tables 41 and 42). The picture proves
that numbers of those “suffering from a given national/ethnic grudge” are rather
marginal. Furthermore, the picture is very stable over time. In fact, no significant
changes have so far been recorded. Numbers in relation to those who felt a grudge
against others based on their different racial background are slightly higher, however,
they have been decreasing in a positive direction over time.
Table 41. Grudge against other persons with different national/ethnic background,
the Czech Republic, 1993–2000
Grudge/ year
Often
Sometimes
Never
Does not remember
1993
6
16
64
14
1994
3
20
64
13
1995
3
19
66
12
1996
3
18
68
11
1997
2
14
74
10
1998
2
14
74
10
1999
3
15
73
9
2000
1
11
77
11
Source: K národnostní 2001
Table 42. Grudge against other persons with different racial background, the Czech
Republic, 1993–2000
Grudge/ year
1993
Often
10
Sometimes
24
Never
53
Does not remember 13
1994
9
25
55
11
1995
7
22
61
10
1996
6
25
58
11
1997
5
19
66
10
1998
4
19
68
9
1999
6
21
65
8
2000
3
18
68
11
Source: K národnostní 2001
Representatives of the Roma ethnic community are the most frequent target for ethnic
and racial intolerance in the Czech Republic (74% of all cases – K národnostní 2001;
Danielová 2002) and the most frequent victims of racially motivated acts of violence
(66% of all the cases – Štěchová 2001 – according to Danielová 2002).
Between 1997 and 2000 there were 187, 259, 353 and 358, respectively, criminal offences
committed and, at the same time, classified as racially motivated in the Czech Republic.
When combining data for the last two years (1999-2000), the propagation of racism (40%)
81
The skinhead movement - responsible for about 23% of racially motivated criminal offences (Danielová
2002) - had about 6,200 members in the Czech Republic in 2000 (Danielová 2002). This is not a negligible
number
73
is followed by physical attacks (34%) and verbal attacks (26%) (Danielová 2002).
Evaluating development over time is difficult because it is hard to tell whether criminal
offences have increased or the police have begun implementing new monitoring
methods and taking a more consistent approach to crime. When again working with
data for 1999-2000, Prague, North Moravia and North Bohemia regions dominated in
terms of racially motivated criminal offences (in absolute terms). However, when
looking at relative data (per 10,000 inhabitants between the ages of 15-59), Prague, North
Bohemia and Western Bohemia become the most important.
Thus, when explaining (by the Czech districts) what is behind racially motivated
criminal offences (1999-2000), the following characteristics with respective correlations
appeared: the divorce rate (r = 0.42), the urban environment (inter alia, with its
anonymity) (r = 0.37), voters of the Association for the Republic - Republican Party of
the Czech Republic82 (r = 0.31), the unemployment rate (r = 0.29), the criminality rate (r
= 0.27), the share of Roma population (r = 0.26), gains coming from taxes (r = 0.23) and,
in the opposite direction - the share of believers (r = -0.34) (see more in Danielová 2002).
Danielová (2002) illustrated that a high and direct correlation between racially
motivated criminal offences and the percentage of foreigners (by Czech district) does
not exist at all.83 Immigrants in the Czech Republic become victims of racially motivated
criminal offences to a much lesser extent than “domestic” Romas. Thus, the racially
driven grudge does not relate to the concentration of legal immigrants (Danielová 2002).
However, when designing a new, more complex characteristic (where the support for
the Association for the Republic - Republican Party of the Czech Republic and racially
motivated criminal offences are combined - as a dependent variable (in relative terms per 10,000 inhabitants in an age category between 15 and 59) and juxtaposing it with
various independent variables, a correlation (albeit not a strong one) with the share of
immigrants from Asia and Africa is confirmed. Thus, the importance of “cultural/ethnic
distance” has been proven.
When searching for better and more objective publication of migration issues, interviewee
No. 9 points out that the whole non-governmental sector working in this field is rather
weak, and organizations compete rather than cooperate with each other. In this regard,
No. 14 criticises journalists for their rather negative (not objective) reflections of these
issues (see also No. 15, No. 18, No. 8, No. 3). However, she feels there will be some
improvements in this field over time as well.
4.6. Conclusions
- Immigration, especially economically-driven, helps propel motors of transformation
processes mainly in the most important urban poles of development and this is the
most important impact of immigrants upon the Czech society. In regard to economic
migrants, it has been confirmed that not only “poles of economic development,” but
also “compatriots’ nets” (with their supportive role) have been important factors in
attracting immigrants to and within the Czech Republic.
Just for this Party (it did not reach the threshold of 5% votes in the Parliamentary elections of June 1998
and, therefore, since then its representatives have not sit on the Parliament) intolerance to racially and
nationally different groups is a key program principle
83
However, irregular immigrants were not, and could not, be taken into account
82
74
- Ethnic immigrant groups, in accordance with their own strategies, have found specific
niches on the Czech labour market, thereby reshaping its previous contours. Three
immigrant groups are involved in this process above all: Ukrainians, Vietnamese and
Chinese.
- As in other developed immigration countries, the presence of economic immigrants in
the Czech Republic brings with it both pros and cons for the country and for the
immigrants themselves (in particular, the exploitation of immigrants is omnipresent).
However, due to the significant lack of data in Czech statistics, the economic impact of
the immigration upon the Czech society cannot be properly identified, analysed and
understood at this time. Concerning immigration vis-à-vis cultural contributions,
demographic changes, changes in the social structure and the like in the Czech
Republic, immigrants have no nation-wide influence on these issues, only partially on
the local level.
- The Czech population is xenophobic (its intensity differs according to given
“structural” parameters – mainly socio-demographic, economic and geographical).
However, the relationship is not “linear” in its character; when comparing the
beginning of the 1990s with the beginning of the 2000s, the overall perception of
selected individual ethnic immigrant groups among the Czech public has become
more positive.
- Whereas Slovaks are, out of the selected ethnic groups, by far the most popular for the
Czech majority (followed by Poles, Vietnamese and citizens of the former Soviet
Union), citizens of the Balkans and especially Roma belong to the most unpopular
ones. On the whole, the popularity of individual ethnic groups vis-à-vis the Czech
population has not changed too much over time.
- Prejudice against the Roma ethnic group is a persistently recurring attitude.
- Nevertheless, the manifestation of right wing extremism, associated mainly with young
people, has been limited to small groups and has not spread throughout the
population in a way that could destabilise public safety in any of the Czech regions.
75
5. Migration policy, legislation and procedures
– the present situation and planned migration
management strategy
Until recently, Czech migration policies and practices have suffered from some
weaknesses (see e.g. Drbohlav 2003a, b). First, the national immigration policy has no
clear objectives, except: 1) to join western democratic structures (especially the EU)
and thereby harmonize international migration policies and practices with those in the
West (Nevertheless, interviewee No. 9 mentions that the EU has not been “stabilised” and
is still searching for its “absolute values;” No. 15 expressed a similar opinion. No. 6 notes
that the EU common policy is to be designed by 2004, and thus far it has not been clear
and agreed upon what that policy is to be); 2) to combat illegal immigration. However, a
general conception of illegal migration is lacking, as well as the willingness, ability and
means to combat it.
Approaches to international migration have been implemented, with only a few
exceptions,84 from a defensive perspective; however, the Czech Republic’s interest in
joining western democratic structures has complicated the matter, as the country’s
approach to immigration is also influenced by its geopolitical interests. “At least until
1999, the policy has been mainly concerned with ad hoc measures within a more or less
static model. Unambiguously, passive attitudes prevailed over active ones. No general
goals were defined, let alone specific preferences made regarding economic,
demographic, cultural or social diversity. For example, many economic and, in fact, all
demographic, cultural and geographic aspects were ignored. In so doing, a rather
negative perception of the international migration issue is obvious; its positive effects
have been more or less ignored or not recognised. Discussing and publicising the
migration issue in general, and that of a foreign labour force in particular, was rare,
reflecting an absence of any systematic activity in this field. The Government and the
Parliament - in many respects the key bodies to create and implement policy - had other
priorities on the agenda. As a corollary, the existing migration legislation was not pliant.
The whole process of change in this field (new laws, amendments) stagnated …”
(Drbohlav 2003b). To summarize, no coherent and mutually complementary policies
with regard to immigration were practiced.
Nevertheless, since 1999 some very positive developments regarding international
migration and immigrants’ integration have occurred. Firstly, new migratory legislation
has been adopted. This, to some extent, enabled “migratory theory and practice” to be
harmonised within a domestic institutional, administrative network and toward the EU.
In short, the main goal was to strengthen migration control according to the EU
standards and requirements. The twin new Acts: Act No. 326/1999 Coll. on the Stay of
Aliens on the Territory of the Czech Republic (Aliens Act) and Act No. 325/1999 Coll. on
Asylum (Asylum Act) entered into effect in January 2000. They have in common that
they represent a very detailed set of rules aimed at regulating all aspects of migration
and asylum procedures for the stay of foreigners, asylum seekers and recognised
refugees on the territory of the state, which have made this legislation a more
84
See below the state integration programme above all
76
concentrated and unified whole. Since then, several new amendments have been
adopted to make the both Acts even better (e.g. Drbohlav 2003a). It is noteworthy that
the Aliens Act gives precedence to international treaties regulating the stay of third
country nationals on the Czech territory over its own provisions. Further, certain issues
closely related to migration itself are governed by specific laws, including, most
importantly, access by third country nationals to employment and independent gainful
activities85. Recently, the relevant laws have been amended with respect to harmonizing
them with the EU regulations, and they will continue to be amended in this manner.
However, almost all of the obligations of the EU Acquis in the migration sphere have
been fulfilled. In April 1992, it was stated within the Migration Module, “Phare
Horizontal Programme Migration, Visa and external Border Control Management” –
“Analysis Grid for: The Czech Republic” that “despite the encouraging progress, there
are still some important gaps with regard to the legal framework, the institutional set-up
and the administrative practice in the Czech Republic” (see more in Migration 2002).
Between April 2002 and summer 2003, more steps toward fully harmonizing the whole
Czech “migratory sphere” with that in the EU were accomplished. When taking into
account all the transformation processes in the migration field that the country has
successfully gone through, the situation is rather positive.
In this context, interviewee No. 11 points out that these changes pose specific problems
because foreigners cannot adjust very quickly to new rules and regulations. Furthermore,
No. 18 highlights that good “theoretical (legislation)” is not enough; even more important
is to implement the given policies in practice. No. 5 predicts that internal controls will
probably be abolished in EU states (as follows from the “Schengen Agreement”) in 2006.
No. 7 states that currently, the Czech Republic negotiates at a bilateral level in order to fully
harmonise with EU a list of countries with which to have a visa free regime. It will be done
by the day of the accession.
Interviewee No. 4 estimates it will take between 1.5 to 3 years to harmonise EU migration
policies and, consequently, to adjust the Czech one to the EU “global” one.
Other major changes and, to a large extent, improvements compared to former laws
include a new complex visa regime that contains provisions for the issuance, validity
and type of visas. Those third country nationals who intend to come to the Czech
Republic for a specific purpose, such as employment, must first obtain a corresponding
visa in their country of origin through Czech embassies or consular offices. Accordingly,
new formal statuses for a stay in the country have been created and it is mandatory for
anyone who is to operate in the country under the umbrella of a long-term visa to
simultaneously also obtain a work permit or a trade license. In sum, just as in the EU
countries, external controls have been strengthened.
There are other activities that are worth mentioning. The Ministry of the Interior,
through its Department for Asylum and Migration Policy (formerly the Department for
Refugees and Integration of Foreigners), took the initiative to conceptualize and
systematize the whole issue of migration. For example, a new ministerial advisory
85
See Act No. 1/1991 Coll., as amended, On Employment and No. 455/1991 Coll., as amended, Trade
Licensing, above all
77
commission (composed of migration experts/representatives of other relevant
ministries, selected state bodies, regional or local policy makers, NGOs and
independent research/scientific circles) has been established. In collaboration with this
Commission, the Department has worked out a “Concept of immigration integration
policy.” This document has become a basic policy pillar defining the policy and means
through which activities in the field of international migration/immigrants’ integration
will be realised.86 A slight, nevertheless quite obvious, positive shift from rather
“defensive interests” (touching migrant “flows” above all) toward social and cultural
aspects of migration and integration (touching mainly immigrant “stocks”) is apparent.
(Interviewee No. 1 sees a positive shift in the fact that now the Czech bureaucratic
networks do not create many obstacles when dealing with immigrants). An important
initiative has also come from the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. In line with
demographic parameters and the whole situation on the Czech labour market and,
indeed, with what is going on in Western Europe (e.g. German or the UK activities), they
have brought in a “Proposal for Active Selection of Skilled Foreign Workers” (see
below). Regarding scientific/research activities, especially since 2000, a fairly significant
number of studies on international migration movements in the Czech Republic and
immigrants’ integration into Czech society have been implemented.
However, interviewee No. 1 points out some current shortcomings. He argues that there is
still a very unhealthy “individualistic approach,” hammered out by respective ministries
responsible for international migration issues/sub issues. No. 16 emphasises that foreigners
are generally not intensively included in designing the migration policy in a broad sense of
the word - she blames the state since there are not enough public debates around the issue
and the administration does not function as a “service.” No. 5 calls for foreigners’
immigration and integration from pragmatic reasons – to improve demographic
parameters of the country. No. 2 stipulates that so far the impact of the immigration upon
demographic structures in the Czech Republic has been rather marginal.
5.1. Admission
Acceptable/unacceptable travel documents
Czech legislation clearly stipulates what particular documents (including valid
passports, visas, if necessary, and the like) must be ready when entering the country.
Since many would-be foreign visitors (immigrants or transit migrants) to the country (or
those who have already been in the country) do not meet given demands in order for
them to qualify for obtaining these visas (or renewing them), changing, forging, and
falsifying travel documents87 is a common practice. Nevertheless, this is a well-known
and worldwide phenomenon. For example, during 2002, out of 14,741 persons who were
caught when illegally trying to cross the state border, 485 used documents that were not
in order. It was the lowest number since 1994 when officials began to document the
86
For instance, regarding research in the migration field, the concept assumes that significantly more
financial support (coming from the state budget) will be devoted to migration research. Furthermore, the
communication/information channels between, on one hand, the Ministry of the Interior and other
Ministries, and, on the other hand, the public and state administration at a local level, have in part been
improved. Also, NGOs have been invited to cooperate in the given field
87
A really wide spectrum of possibilities as to how to falsify documents, ranging from a “simple” change
of a date or a photo enable one to create an entirely new passport
78
misuse of travel documents (Zpráva 2003). There is no doubt that due to modern
technical equipment, many more foreigners in the country used false documents
without being identified and punished. It is difficult to evaluate what is behind the
current decrease in relation to catching those with false documents. It may correspond
to an overall decrease in illegal state border crossings, to a more peaceful situation in
South-East Europe, to changing models of visa policy in the Czech Republic and the EU
countries, and, last but not least, to more effective border control in Europe after
September 11, 2001 (Zpráva 2003). The most frequent misuse of documents concerns
travel documents for the Czech Republic (Zpráva 2002b)). Passports issued between
1993 and March 2000 are especially prone to being forged/falsified because the photo
can be removed without difficulty. Because the validity of some of these documents will
expire as late as the beginning of 2010, there is not very much hope that the situation
will improve significantly soon (Zpráva 2002b). However, better technical equipment
and more frequent and consistent controls should contribute to improvements in the
situation. The Czech Republic’s accession to the EU will also help combat the given
issue, as it will present many new opportunities and greater harmonization (including
with countries outside the territory of the EU).
Interviewee No. 12 informs us about the possibility (which is now being discussed in the
Parliament) to apply pre-screening at the Czech state border, a filtering process for those
who are allowed to enter the country. No. 5 pinpoints the fact that many irregular migrants
come to the country legally – as tourists – and become irregular immigrants after their
documents have expired.
Admission for employment and for self-employment
A person is obliged to hold a work permit or a trade license at the same time as a visa
for over 90 days in order to be employed or to do business in the country88. After
meeting all the demands placed upon applicants, the two documents may be issued for
a maximum of 1 year.89 After that, they can be renewed (if the purpose is still valid)
several times.
The demands placed on applicants for a work permit are very different from those
required by applicants for a trade licence.
Of course, other related purposes can be mentioned as well
Some categories of foreigners do not need to apply for visas and permits and some special preferential
treatment is granted to citizens of the EU countries (see more in Drbohlav 2003a).
A specific regime also springs from signed bilateral agreements, which govern some foreigners’ activities
on the Czech labour market (especially employment and short-term attachments/trainees). In terms of
their impact on the Czech labour market, agreements signed with Slovakia (October 29, 1992) and Ukraine
(March 21, 1996) must be mentioned. The agreement with Ukraine (No. 67/1999 Coll.) expired on
February 4, 2002. However, the employment of Ukrainians was governed by the Act No. 1/1991 Coll., and
the agreement itself had, more or less, a declarative role. In practical terms, the procedure for how
Ukrainians get a job in the Czech Republic is now the same as it was before the agreement expired. Since
January 1, 1993, a citizen of Slovakia does need to ask either for a „temporary stay permit “ (a visa for
over 90 days) or for a work permit in the Czech Republic (the „presidential agreement“ with „higher legal
power“ of October, 29, 1992, No. 227/1993 Coll). He/she is only required to register himself/herself (i.e.,
neither purpose nor length of stay is set). In contrast, such advantages cannot be used reciprocally by
citizens of the Czech Republic in Slovakia (see Slovak Act No. 73/1995 Coll.)
88
89
79
Obtaining a work permit involves a complicated procedure. Work permits are issued
depending on the current labour market situation.90 An employer has to submit a
number of documents and specify details about the relevant position when asking for
a foreign worker. A work permit is issued for a maximum period of one year with the
option of renewal (when asking for the permit, a valid travel document, a document
proving qualification or specialization in the relevant sector and, if necessary, a health
certificate are required). A work permit is only valid for the specific job, employer, and
area it was granted for (if only one of these „parameters“ is changed, re-application is
necessary). Foreigners who work in the Czech Republic for foreign firms/companies
(if these signed an agreement with their Czech partners) also have to follow this
procedure. An exception to this policy exists for asylum seekers, who are allowed to be
employed after a one-year official stay in the country.
In contrast, obtaining a trade license is much easier.91 Leaving aside important details
(for example, how to conduct business through a personal representative - see further
information in Act No. 455/1991 Coll., as amended) and some rather specific categories
(like trainees and intra-corporate transferees – see Drbohlav 2003a), the following steps
are necessary in order for a foreigner to be allowed to do business in the Czech
Republic. He/she must fulfill several conditions: be at least 18 years old, have full legal
capacity, have no criminal record and submit a document confirming that he/she owes
no tax arrears to the local tax authority. This document must be issued by the pertinent
tax authority unless otherwise specified. As the Act stipulates, in some cases
specialization or qualification requirements have to be fulfilled. There is also an
obligation to register the business activity in a business registry. However, in contrast
with many developed countries, there is, for example, no need to submit and defend a
detailed business plan in the Czech Republic, and no need to show that the given
activity „will have a beneficial effect on employment … or on economic development.“
There is no need to prove financial resources, no need to prove that an applicant is able
to orient him/herself in a given environment (this concerns, in particular, the juridical
environment), etc. (see more in Drbohlav 2003a). Moreover, there is no clear
differentiation between what is „doing business“ and what is, in fact, working as a
classical employee. All in all, the conditions are very liberal (including rather rare and
ineffective controls) and are, in fact, often misused by foreigners (see the section on
irregular immigration and illegal employment).
Although problems linked with the very liberal regime of issuing trade licenses
(regarding both legislation and procedure) have been known for a long time, there
appears to be no political will to change the situation. Clearly, this very liberal regime
does not at all correspond to the „overcautious regime“ regarding the arrival, stay and
employment of foreigners in the territory of the Czech Republic. In this regard, probably
only „mandatory adjustment“ to the EU rules will bring about change.
The current practice in the Czech Republic is that a foreigner (a would-be employee) can take a vacant
job provided no other citizen of the Czech Republic is willing to accept it. Job centres are responsible for
granting work permits
91
Trade centres are in charge of issuing trade licenses
90
80
Admission for study purposes
Act No. 111/1998 Coll., On Colleges/Universities, governs this issue. A foreigner who
comes under the umbrella of a visa for a period exceeding 90 days for the purpose of
study (or can be a holder of other statuses – like a permanent residence permit, a
successful asylum seeker, etc.) is allowed to study free of charge at a (state, public)
university under the same conditions as a Czech citizen. There are two important
prerequisites – he/she must pass an entrance exam in Czech and study in the Czech
language.92 If he/she exceeds the number of years normally given for finishing study, if
he/she wants to study in a foreign language, or if he/she chooses a private university
he/she is supposed to pay for it (see more in Hronková / Hradečná 2003). There are two
more important entrance channels: a scholarship made possible via governmental
grants within the foreign developmental aid of the Czech Republic93 and scholarships
via signed international agreements between the Czech Republic and other respective
countries (Hronková / Hradečná 2003).
It seems that admission mechanisms regarding foreign students, and, consequently,
their study in the country, do not pose serious problems. The question is whether the
strong predominance of Slovak students (64% of all the students in 2001/02 – see above),
quite logical due to common history and cultural patterns, is healthy vis-à-vis growing
overall (and “complex”) ethnic diversification.
5.2. Stay
Family reunification
In the Czech Republic, family reunification is regulated by two separate laws (Act No.
326/1999 Coll., on Residence of Aliens in the Territory of the Czech Republic, as
amended, and Act No. 325/1999 Coll., On Asylum, as amended). In fact, three different
„family channels“ come into play here.
The first law clearly defines who has a right to be provided with a permanent residence
permit without waiting for 10 or 8 years.94 The condition of a previous continuous stay
in the territory does not apply if the residence permit is applied for by aliens who can
meet various additional demands: these are related to family reunion processes
(several different possibilities, including holding the role as a guardian), to
humanitarian reasons and to the foreign policy interests of the Czech Republic
(Drbohlav 2003a). As a second option, family reunification is also possible on a visa for
over 90 days. Within the given act it is stipulated that: „A visa for over 90 days shall be
issued by the police at the request of an alien who intends to remain in the territory (of
the Czech Republic) for a purpose which requires him to remain in the territory for over
90 days … The relevant diplomatic authority shall state the purpose of the stay in the
visa. The visa … shall be valid for 365 days… or for a shorter period - until the purpose
Specific internal rules are set by individual universities
The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport is responsible for organizing this program; between 2003
and 2007, 200 scholarships a year will be reserved for foreign students
94
Section 67 of this Act says that: „following 10 years of continuous stay in the territory with a visa for over
90 days or a visa for the purpose of temporary protection, a residence permit may be applied for by any
alien“
92
93
81
is achieved” (more in Drbohlav 2003a). Third, the latter Act on Asylum enables family
reunification as well, while defining “family” in a very strict sense of the word (more in
Drbohlav 2003a). It is worth mentioning that Czech laws do not include any specific
provisions regarding family reunion and related resource requirements, waiting
periods, conditions of residence, or access to education and employment.
In reality, as in many other countries, “family reunification” in the Czech Republic is one
of the most important channels through which immigrants arrive in the country.
Regarding “permanent” immigrants, as of December 31, 2000, of 66,891 immigrants who
stayed in the country with a permanent residence permit, 87% (58,229) came under the
family reunification umbrella (both reunification with a foreigner and with a Czech
citizen). Among “long-term” immigrants who stayed in the country with a visa for over
90 days, 9.7% (12,982) of 134,060 immigrants came to join their family members. At the
very end of 2000, 35% of all legally staying foreigners in the Czech Republic came
through the family reunification channel. The numbers of those who reunify with their
families after gaining asylum status in the Czech Republic are rather marginal since
successful applicants do not number higher than about 100 a year (see above).
In sum, it is clear that the Czech Republic takes a positive approach toward respecting
the need and right of foreigners to reunite with their families. Furthermore, the
principles applied in this respect have been more or less in harmony with what is
typical of the EU. Nevertheless, in order to further harmonise the issue with EU reality,
designing an individual law in Czech legislation that would specifically define the
conditions under which family members can reunite would be worth considering.
Regarding managing the family reunification process, recently, there have only been
some problems in terms of procedural matters, springing from poor cooperation
between the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The illegal employment of third country nationals
The situation in this field has already been described and partly explained above (see
particularly the sections on irregular migration, including trafficking and smuggling in
human beings, irregular labour immigration and the evasion of migratory legislation,
and illegal employment and exploitation). As in many other countries in the world, the
problem of immigrants’ illegal employment is not being effectively dealt with (see
aforementioned sections). I dare to argue that if we keep the same “complex structural
platforms” and the same “mechanisms” as they function now, the issue will never be
solved.95 The only thing that can be done is to try to mitigate all of the negative impacts
upon host societies and, at the same time, upon some of the involved immigrants.
95
In particular, the following two aspects should be addressed: a) the existing and even growing
disparities between developed and developing Worlds; 2) a sort of schizophrenia or hypocrisy when, on
one side, host immigrant societies combat illegal immigration while, on the other side, they, in various
ways and at different levels, either hide or officially support it. The reason is that although irregular
immigration as a whole is detrimental to a state, in some ways and, to some extents, it can also conform
to a state’s and individual’s interests (e.g. employers’ never-ending strong desire for a cheap illegal labour
force in developed countries). Lastly, there is the moral/humanitarian dimension of the issue that often
goes against many strict rules and regulations
82
In accordance with Aktuální (2001), let us pinpoint some more general suggestions that
could contribute to the alleviation of the issue and all of its related problems:
1) Improve mutual cooperation between the individual ministries dealing with
international migration issues. Police bodies, the Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs,96 municipal and regional authorities, job and trade centres, trade unions,
professional chambers, etc. must play an important role in such endeavor.
2) Accumulate better information on this subject (exchange databanks, experience,
etc.).
3) Create more frequent, strict, and consistent controls for those foreigners who are
employed or do business in the Czech Republic and those who manage and organise
these activities (employers, contractors and the like), including the preparation of
additional legislation that will enable people to engage in these activities more
effectively.
4) Regarding punishment, to make more frequent use of existing legislation and
regulations.
5) To rework the very liberal regime of issuing trade licences (change the present
legislation) and make it stricter, tighter, and closer to EU policies and practices (see
above).
6) To speed up the whole process of investigating those who break the law.
7) To invest money in strengthening the respective institutional networks that deal with
migration (in terms of both the quantity and quality of human capital, as well as
technical equipment). However, what seems to be very important and not often
remembered, (see also Aktuální 2001) is the necessity of intensive cooperation with
immigrants’ countries of origin (especially information campaigns about what
migrants can expect in the Czech Republic and well-founded projects under the
international aid support of the Government of the Czech Republic).
In this context, interviewee No. 1 stresses the extremely liberal policy (and practices)
enabling foreigners to do business in the country, and notes that where there are
regulations, they are easily evaded. On the other hand, No. 9 mentions that an overall
more liberal regime would contribute to decreasing illegal inflows. Similarly, No. 11
emphasises that, generally, strict conditions regulating access to the country stimulate a
whole spectrum of illegal activities.
Marriages of convenience
Next to usual marriages, negotiated “false marriages” are used as a tool for entering the
Czech Republic easily and legally,97 as one can obtain permanent residence status by
marrying a Czech citizen. Such activities also occurred during the socialist period (see
the highly-acclaimed movie, “Kolja”). However, the current situation in this regard has
Just this Ministry (including an inter-ministerial commission established and working within the Ministry)
is responsible for co-ordinating issues of the illegal economic immigration in the country
97
When doing surveys on Ukrainian circular labour migrants in 1995/1996 and 1999 (see more on sampling
and other details in Drbohlav 1997a and Drbohlav et al. 1999), out of the whole sample, 10% respondents
and 19% respondents, respectively, were offered a false marriage with a citizen of the Czech Republic
during their stay in the country in order for them to legalize it
96
83
not been extensively studied, and is limited to rather scarce attempts by journalists to
publicise it (e.g. this practice among the Vietnamese community in West Bohemia in the
mid-1990s). What might be expected is that this phenomenon is probably not as
common now as it used to be since, to some extent, legislation has means to prevent
misuse of marriage (a breakdown of the marriage during a clearly defined time period
leads to loosing one’s stay status – see also No. 4).
Residence permits and other regularization procedures
Act No. 326/1999 Coll., on Residence of Aliens in the Territory of the Czech Republic, as
amended, clearly stipulates who has the right to be provided with a permanent
residence permit (a relatively more secure status) without waiting for 10 or 8 years (see
above and Drbohlav 1993a). As it has already been mentioned, this act also says that:
„following 10 years of continuous stay in the territory with a visa for over 90 days or a
visa for the purpose of temporary protection, a residence permit may be applied for by
any alien“. Generally, this is a longer time frame than the five years suggested by the
common EU plan (this plan has a more secure category called, „long-term residence
status“). Recently, there have been some initiatives among the public and especially
NGOs to put this issue on the agenda and to shorten the present waiting period. The
whole topic is being discussed at present (autumn 2003).
Despite hosting considerable numbers of quasi-documented and irregular/
undocumented immigrants on its territory (see more Drbohlav 2003b), regularization as
an official instrument of legalizing immigrants (as it is in many developed countries) is
not on the agenda in the Czech Republic. So far, this issue has never been openly
discussed and publicised.
Citizenship issues
Baršová (2003) briefly and clearly summarizes the situation in the field of citizenship
and its issuance in the Czech Republic. “Since the establishment of independence,
Czech legislation has permanently been dealing with problems related to the split of
Czechoslovakia98. Individuals who had Czechoslovakian citizenship and,
simultaneously, had lived continuously on the territory of the Czech Republic since
1992 received Czech citizenship through an amendment of the law in 1999. However,
citizenship in the Czech Republic should also be granted to those, who, since the
establishment of the new state, have lived in the Czech Republic only most of the time.
Some of these persons only left the country for a short time and now it is rather difficult
for them to obtain a permanent residence permit in the Czech Republic. As compared
to neighboring countries, the Czech demands in order to obtain Czech citizenship do
not correspond to either the present-day or to the European Convention on Nationality99
(ETS No. 166). In fact, one can ask for Czech citizenship after holding a permanent
residence permit for five years, which can be normally obtained only after 10 years of
holding a long-term permit/renewing a visa for a stay exceeding 90 days. This means
one has to wait 15 years minimum. On the other hand, the European Convention allows
98
99
See, for example, Act No. 40/1993 Coll., as amended, and Act No. 193/1999 Coll
It was signed in May 1999, but so far has not yet been ratified by the Czech Republic
84
10 years as a maximum and, in Western Europe, the waiting period is on average about
5 years. Only holders of a permanent residence permit can ask for Czech citizenship,
and one has to meet very rigid economic and social criteria. Furthermore, the Czech
Republic (in contrast with other countries in transformation) has left the issuance of
citizenship to immigrants of the second and third generations unfinished (a ius soli
principle), thereby maintaining more restrictive controls over this process. Such a
practice is typical of many Western European countries and is also embodied in the
European Convention. Foreigners born on the territory of the Czech Republic are not
even able to get a permanent residence permit. Concerning the possibility of accepting
the double citizenship policy, the country is still rather reserved toward this approach.
Leaving aside some of the former Czechoslovakian citizens, only foreigners who ask for
double citizenship after 20 years of residence in the Czech Republic can succeed.”
Although only some EU countries require no more than five years of residence in order
to obtain citizenship, one can only agree with Baršová’s (2003) recommendations: the
Czech Republic should follow the more liberal trend characteristic of many European
countries and, at least, lower the threshold of 20 years down to 10 years at most, and,
also, enable persons to keep double citizenship as citizens of the EU. The number of
citizenships issued in the Czech Republic each year is low, thus corresponding to what
has already been mentioned. Between 1997 and 2001, 837, 1,128, 1,031, 1,059 and 1,121100,
respectively, foreigners were naturalised by obtaining citizenship in the Czech Republic
(Zpráva 2002b).101
5.3. Return, detention and expulsion
Expulsion: procedures and enforcement
Since 2000, in harmony with Act No. 326/1999 Coll., as amended, the act of
administrative expulsion is being executed by the Alien and Border Police. “Under
section 128 of this Act, the detained foreigner, whose residence in the Czech Republic
is to be terminated pursuant to a final and conclusive decision on administrative
expulsion, is transported by the police to a border crossing to be expelled from the
country there” (Cizinci 2003). This does not apply, however, when a foreigner appeals
the decision of administrative expulsion. If this appeal is dismissed, however, the police
will transport the foreigner back to the state border. In 2002, 12,700 foreigners were
sentenced to an act of administrative expulsion in the territory of the state.102 The most
important reason for such expulsion was breaking one’s “stay status” and the most
numerous ethnic group to do so was Ukrainians (see also the text above).
In the Czech Republic, there are two types of expulsion: administrative and by court of
law. “Administrative” expulsion is not as severe and is not issued for criminal offences.
It is a formal end of the foreigner’s stay and he/she is usually forbidden to re-enter the
Czech Republic for a certain period of time. In 2001, 11,064 foreigners were sentenced to
administrative expulsion (47.4% were Ukrainians). Expulsion by court of law is more
severe and is usually executed in connection with a criminal offence (refer to Act No.
140/1961 Coll. (Criminal Act), imposed by courts of law in criminal proceedings, and Act
Slovaks are not included
In 2001, there were 163 Poles, 140 Romanians, 132 Bulgarians and 173 Ukrainians among the new citizens
of the country (Zpráva 2002 b)
102
Between 1997 and 2002, the number oscilated between 10,000 and 22,000 (Zpráva 2003)
100
101
85
No. 141/1961 Coll., on Criminal Proceedings). In 2002, 1,350 foreigners were sentenced
to expulsion by the court.103 Ukrainians again predominated, followed by Slovaks
(Cizinci 2003).
There are several problems related to expulsion. Firstly, only a very limited number of
those who are sentenced to administrative expulsion are really expelled from the
country (12% in 2002); others are only labelled as such on their documents and, instead
of leaving the country, they continue to operate there or try and illegally reach the West.
Secondly, once detained, many foreigners avoid expulsion by asking for asylum.
Despite the fact that their application is usually not well-founded, it must go through the
whole procedure of investigating an asylum case. Through this procedure, the foreigner
buys time and often disappears from the asylum centre (see also text above) after
which he continues to work illegally in the country or to head for Germany or Austria.
In sum, the effectiveness of the expulsion procedure is, in practice, rather small.
Interviewee No. 4 states that, for example, when an Ukrainian is sent away from the Czech
Republic for over-extending his/her stay, he/she only faces one sort of punishment at the
border: a fine of 5,000 Czech crowns for “exceeding a tourist visa.”
Pre-expulsion detention and other forms of detention of migrants
Foreigners who were caught on the territory of the Czech Republic for breaking their
“stay status” are sentenced to an act of administrative expulsion (see above) and are
placed in special detention centres for foreigners. Out of the current 5 centres, the first
one began functioning in November 1998 (Bálková), while the newest one (Bělá –
specializing in taking care of families – mothers with their children) was established in
July 2002. As of the very end of 2002, the capacity of all the centres was 719 beds. 699
foreigners (of those, 438 were asylum seekers) were in residence there at that time.
Between November 1998 and 2002, altogether 18,475 foreigners were processed through
the detention centers. 17,827 of them were released, whilst, until the change of the
legislation in February 2002104, 10,362 left for asylum centres. 4,894 were expelled from
the country and 246 others were “readmitted” under respective agreements with
neighboring countries.
What are the problems? In fact, many of the foreigners, often those without any
documents, enter the asylum procedure in these centres. After a period of 180 days has
elapsed, during which it is mandatory to stay in detention centers, these foreigners are
relocated to asylum centers or are allowed to wait for a final decision from them. Those
who do not enter the asylum procedure are “labelled as unwanted” and have to leave
the country. In both cases, the result is that despite clearly misusing the asylum
procedure and even being punished for breaking laws, the state is not able to expulse
them. Thus, many of these immigrants still stay in the country as undocumented
foreigners. Furthermore, the police are not able to find out the identity of many of the
asylum seekers in detention centers. Hence, they stay there for a long time, blocking the
103
104
Between 1997 and 2002, the number oscilated between 700 and 1,500
Act No. 325/1999 Coll., and 283/1991 amended and changed by Act No. 2/2002 Coll.
86
capacity of the centres. Logically, due to language barriers for some ethnic groups (a
lack of good translators), immigrants strongly protest against the whole regime and
procedures (this situation mainly concerns Chinese). Living conditions in these centers
are rather harsh, which has also been mentioned by several NGOs. In this context, it is
a good idea to place mothers with their children in a special center that can meet some
of their specific needs.
To summarize, it is quite clear that one of the main goals for improving the whole
situation in the migration field in the Czech Republic is to expel from the country those
who have already been identified as unwelcome. On a very general level, one might
also find a remedy through:
1) becoming more concerned about this situation in all political and administrative
structures - and at all hierarchical levels,
2) becoming more cooperative - both internally and internationally,
3) becoming more competent, consistent - not only in “theory,” but mainly “in practice”
- and stern, and
4) investing in the necessary human capital and technical equipment.
Readmission
To some extent, one legislative solution to the problem of non permitted migrants is
contained within the “cascade policy.” Those migrants who are not accepted by
Germany and Austria could be “cascaded” onward (often through Slovakia) to their
respective countries, as it is stipulated in bilaterally signed readmission agreements. In
addition to signing these agreements with all neighboring countries,105 the Czech
Republic has also signed them with Canada, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, France,
Slovenia and Croatia. Negotiations on other agreements with Moldova, Serbia and
Montenegro are under way. Currently, the design of such agreements in the Czech
Republic fully corresponds to the EU model and to its respective acquis
communautaire. However, negotiations on agreements are often a sort of a political
game in which a “weaker side” conditions the signing by making some concessions in
the migration field.106 The readmission agreement contains three areas: accepting one’s
own citizens,107 accepting third country citizens, and police transfers through a territory
of the state (which also cover all related expenses). A migrant can be “readmitted”
when caught on or near a state border without legal permission.108 A person can also be
readmitted from within the interior of a territory when a state officially asks for it. The
given parameters (so called “key elements”) can differ and depend on negotiations.
However, regardless of any other conditions, it must be proven (through visas, a train
ticket, evidence given by state bodies, etc.) that a person illegally stayed or transited
105
Some of these agreements – like, for example, those with Austria and Poland, were signed as early as
the beginning of the 1990s (in 1992 and 1993, respectively)
106
For example, Ukraine and Russia condition the signing of the agreement on a free visa regime with the
Czech Republic. On the other side, when signing the agreement with Germany, the Czech Republic
received 60 million German marks
107
Very often, it is the least problematic of all the issues
108
In any agreement, spatial and time parameters are stipulated - from which zone (a distance from the
border in kilometers) and until what time (in hours elapsed since detainment) a person can be
readmitted. It is usually 48 hours
87
through the territory to which he/she is being returned. Back to reality, readmittance
is burdened with some problems, when 1) German or Austrian bodies try to readmit
those who did not go through the Czech Republic; 2) troubles arise on the Czech-Slovak
border - in North Moravia, springing from “human” rather than from “structural
deficiencies.”
109
Voluntary return
Both the state (represented by bodies of the Ministries of the Interior110) and
international organizations (namely the IOM through its Assisted Voluntary Return
programme111) organise the voluntary return of irregular migrants, rejected asylum
seekers, and asylum seekers who have withdrawn their request for asylum in the Czech
Republic from their countries of origin112 (all the expenses are covered by the state).
Such programmes are designed to alleviate the burden irregular migration poses upon
the Czech authorities. Also, the IOM Office in Prague sees it as an opportunity to
improve conditions for foreigners involuntarily residing in Czech territory. Thus, their
programme is motivated by economic reasons as well as the desire to shorten the
procedure of administrative expulsion,113 at least for foreigners who want to return back
home and are willing to cooperate in this effort. The programme as such consists of
counselling on voluntary return procedures, production and dissemination of
information materials on voluntary return, assistance in obtaining travel documents,
booking tickets, providing pocket money and assistance upon departure and, if
required, upon arrival. (In reality, usually the programme’s implementation can be
divided into two main parts: the information campaign and the return component).
109
As it has already been discussed, the statistics on persons transferred within readmission agreements
reflect spatial patterns of illegal migration flows; so far, the number of “accepted persons” (from abroad)
has prevailed over those who were sent back by the Czech side and accepted by another country (see
above and Zpráva 2003)
110
The Department of Asylum and Migration Policies, The Asylum Facilities Administration, and the
Directorate of the Alien and Border Police
111
Between September 2001 and 2002, the IOM Prague assisted 648 migrants in their return to 35 countries
of the world. The largest number of clients originated from countries of the former Soviet Union – such
as Moldova, Armenia, or Georgia
112
Many migrants were caught up in a vicious cycle of detention centers and refugee facilities without any
hope of changing their status. Many of them have been denied asylum or have stopped the asylum
procedure. Sometimes, they belonged to the group of so-called “stranded migrants,” or have been taken
to the territory of the Czech Republic as victims of the trafficking within the labour force or other forms
of organized crime. These people often express their desire to return to their country of origin. Among
these people are also those who were originally heading further to the West or those who were returned
within the framework of readmission agreements from neighbouring countries (see part on
readmissions). Many of them failed to hold valid travel documents and, due to various technical reasons,
were unable to obtain them by themselves. The technical problems often resulted from the fact that their
embassies or consular offices are located outside the territory of the Czech Republic, usually in some of
the EU countries (Bonn, Vienna, Paris). Furthermore, in pursuance of the Schengen Agreement, these
people are not able to visit their consular offices at all. Another technical problem in terms of their
independent participation in obtaining the substitute document is the fact that these people have no
permanent residential address in which to direct their personal correspondence. They are in a situation
in which a legal solution is difficult to find. Some try to find a solution by breaking the law (they stay in
the country as undocumented migrants), participating in crimes against property, or attempting to cross
an international border illegally. Finally, some of them seek asylum
113
The procedure of administrative expulsion concerns only the cases of administrative violations of law,
not criminal violations
88
For example, during its campaign, the IOM Prague designed an information flyer
(translated into 16 languages) that provided basic information about the possibility of
Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) to the country of origin and the application form,
which serves as the statutory declaration of the migrant’s interest to return to his/her
country of origin. This part of the information campaign is targeted to a migrant in order
to inform him/her of the possibility to return home. At the same time, the preparation
of the flyer was a preparatory phase for the AVR programme’s implementation. The
signed declaration is an essential condition for AVR, and every potential beneficiary of
the AVR must read it through and voluntarily sign and fill it in.
Regarding problems related to voluntary repatriation, one might mention overloaded
detention centers and the fact that the working relationship between the IOM and The
Asylum Facilities Administration (of the Ministry of the Interior) is sometimes not
cooperative, but competitive.
5.4. Other area matters
Illegal/irregular migration, including trafficking/smuggling in human beings114
Illegal or irregular migration, namely trafficking and smuggling in human beings
(including women and children) is a well-known, worldwide and long-lasting
phenomenon. Transforming CEE countries, including the Czech Republic, have been
experiencing it more intensively since the fall of the Iron Curtain.
Interviewee No. 16 mentions that it is correct to understand this phenomenon in a broader
context - not only women and prostitution, but also children and men - especially when
taking into account forced labour and other related exploitations. (See also No. 5, who
mentions the Convention on this issue that the country has signed).
In this context, the Czech Republic has been functioning as both an important source
country, for trafficking in women in particular, and as a transit zone for those who go
from the „East“ and head to the traditional „West.” (This last category includes women
and children active in the sex-business, as well as migrants who are „only“ eager to
reach the western, rich, and democratic World as quickly as possible.)115 The desire for
better living conditions116 and the possibilities that exist on the „free market“ often lure
people into „mafia structures.” These structures have proven abilities to get migrants to
their destinations; however, it can cost migrants their freedom, dignity, health, and even
lives (see more above in the section on irregular migration, including trafficking and
smuggling in human beings).
For example, interviewee No. 16 informs us that there are well-known illegal routes to the
Czech Republic from Moscow (by plane), then in buses, trucks, and on foot across the
“green line” from the South and now through Poland. This route mainly concerns asylumseekers from Chechnya.
Generally, combating illegal migration is a difficult task still waiting for more significant
results. Let us elaborate more on trafficking/smuggling in women in the Czech Republic,
114
Text below is based on an analysis done by the Ministry of the Interior; for more specific legal aspects,
see e.g. Wohlgemuth 2003
115
See a typology: Economic migrants heading for the Czech Republic, irregular migrants transiting
westward, representatives of “ individual tourism,“ and female asylum seekers in the Czech Republic
116
In the case of prostitution, a specific gender position, the „devaluating a role of women in general“ in
their mother countries and the demand for „services“ in destination countries come into play
89
a topic that is worth pinpointing because it is burdened significant problems. Generally,
it is very difficult to analyse it and so far, we have very little information in this field.
Besides Czech women staying and/or operating illegally abroad (mainly in Western
Europe), the country became a destination for many women from other states, namely
from Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria, Romania, China, and Vietnam. These women
often work as prostitutes throughout the country, particularly in big cities and in the
west, where the Czech Republic borders on Germany and Austria (along a well-known
highway, E55).
In this context, interviewees No. 9 and No. 14 speak even about prostitutes among female
asylum seekers in asylum centers. No. 15 mentions the existence of the whole gray
economic zone in border areas (bars, casinos, brothels) that “only” reacts to the demands
of clientele who arrive mainly from Germany and Austria.
The whole issue of prostitution is very complicated. Female migrants often arrive in a
new and very different country not very well informed; therefore, they are vulnerable
to being misused, abused, exploited, and exposed to physical and moral terrors.
Trafficking/smuggling in women is very often linked with other criminal activities
(regarding routes, methods, etc.), such as crossing borders illegally, smuggling guns and
drugs, “modern slavery,“ and forced prostitution. Once falling into the mafia’s trap,
women’s human rights are permanently violated. Various criminal activities touch the
country of origin, transit and destination. The most complicated situation is connected
with the women themselves as soon as their position changes from „voluntary“ (when
the woman had no idea what sort of job is waiting for her) to „mandatory cooperation.“117 Also, some women become active elements in spreading mafia and
criminal activities. Russian-speaking groups and structures (including naturalised
foreigners) are the most involved in organizing the sex-business in the Czech Republic.
The Czech Republic acknowledges its responsibility in the field of combating
trafficking/smuggling in human beings. Two documents are considered to be of high
priority in this regard: the general resolution adopted by the Council of the European
Union on July 19, 2002, and a legislative document adopted by the European
Commission on February 11, 2002.
Besides the necessity of finding new basic and strategic goals (including possible
legislative changes) and improving international co-operation in this area, one could
define other priorities for combating trafficking/smuggling in human beings:
1) The general protection of victims, even if they themselves have violated the law.
2) Finding ways to convince a victim that her co-operation with the Czech Police can
help, rather than harm, her.
3) To make use of anonymous testimony much more frequently when combating
organisers of trafficking activities (current laws enable this procedure).
4) To convince a victim that the best option for her is a voluntary return to her mother
country where she can begin a new life, or to utilise the assistance of NGOs in starting
In 2001, one could get a foreign prostitute – as a new labour force – for 3,000 EUROs (internal materials
of the Ministry of the Interior)
117
90
a new life in the Czech Republic (they help with housing, basic needs, etc.). In
addition, short-term assistance, which can be offered by officially by police bodies to
protect a victim (for at least 60 days) should be used more often.
5) To abolish the current situation in which prostitution is „silently tolerated.“ (See also
opinions given by interviewee No. 12.) According to legislation, prostitution is not a
criminal offence; in fact, this entire matter is not arranged clearly or very well
mapped out. It is necessary to regulate, to pass new legislation on prostitution, and
thus to get prostitution under control. (Czech law does not define trafficking in human
beings for sexual purposes. Therefore, it does not consider a woman sold in the
Czech Republic as a victim of trafficking in human beings. Such a criminal offence is
punished as „pandering“). One other piece of legislation should be changed:
according to the current law, a company/firm cannot be punished if it is instrumental
in trafficking (e.g., conducting false advertising campaigns, etc.).
Vulnerable groups: Unaccompanied minors
As Gladišová (2003) mentions, the Czech Republic is an important transit zone for
migration flows in an East to West direction. About 1,200 unaccompanied minors118
applied for asylum in the Czech Republic between 1998 and 2001 (from 200 to 350 a
year).119 In recent years, these minors have mainly been boys between the ages of 15 and
17 coming from countries such as India, Armenia, Georgia, China, Ukraine, Moldova,
and Iraq (Novák 2003). They do not travel completely unaccompanied; they usually
come in groups with other migrants from the same ethnic community, or with other
children and siblings. About 75% of these unaccompanied minors disappear from the
asylum centres of the Ministry of Interior or from other facilities managed by the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, such as children’s houses or diagnostic centres
for children and youth (between 1998 and 2002, Gladišová 2003, Novák 2003)120. Children
may have traveled to Europe to escape conditions of serious deprivation. Most of them
come from family structures that are broken or have a significant level of internal
conflict as a consequence of high unemployment, low income, social insecurity, etc.
The children may be on their way to other countries as a result of fear of persecution,
discrimination against minorities, or lack of protection due to human rights violations,
civil or religious wars, armed conflicts or other disturbances in their own country. The
Czech authorities are concerned about these affairs and there are well-founded fears
that these children may be smuggled to Western European countries. Some of them
could become victims of trafficking in human beings for different purposes, such as
forced labour or slave-like practices, criminal activities and sexual exploitation.
118
“According to the Asylum Act, § 89, if the asylum seeker is under 18 years old and is on the Czech
territory without parents or other legal or customary caregivers, the court must appoint a guardian for
his/her stay. The rules for the guardianship are specified in the Family Act. The Department of SocialLegal Protection of Children, subordinate to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, may act as the
guardian for stay in case there is no other convenient person, for example a distant relative of the
unaccompanied minors. Unaccompanied minors seeking asylum are usually placed in the facilities of the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport diagnostic centres or a children’s home (if they are under 15) on
the basis of the decision of the courts” (Gladišová 2003)
119
The asylum seeker channel is the only one within which the unaccompanied minors are systematically
dealt with in the Czech Republic. It means that there are considerable gaps in the services dedicated to
other unaccompanied minors
120
Those who stay and do not disappear can mostly be 1) repatriated, or 2) integrated into the Czech
majority society as refugees (thereby also having an opportunity to enter the state integration program
provided that they reach 18 years) or holders of a permanent residence permit
91
To sum up, besides other relevant matters, there are two main issues in desperate
need of improvement: 1) housing, special social and psychological care, and
educational activities adjusted to the specific needs of these children; 2) the prevention
of child abuse while simultaneously launching a programme to record children’s
potential movements and activities.
121
As for point 1, asylum centres are not the most appropriate facilities for unaccompanied
children, despite all efforts to create convenient living conditions through the
establishment of special protection zones and the organization of educational and
leisure-time activities, such as art workshops and cultural and sport events. According
to the Czech Governmental Decision of 2001, new specialized centres for
unaccompanied minors should, and will, be created. These centres will provide
services more suited to their needs, such as pscyhosocial care, adaptation programmes
that promote the healthy psychological and physical development of the child,
individual programmes for children who have undergone psychological trauma, and
educational courses. The staff of these centres will be trained properly and are
expected to have the necessary language skills. The opening of the first centre is
expected in 2003 (Gladišová 2003, Novák 2003).
As for the point 2, the main reason for children’s disappearances probably cannot be
solved right now. The reason is that many of these children still see the Czech Republic
as a transit country. It is believed that they go into EU countries to join family members
who arrived earlier (therefore, the existence of ethnic enclaves can play an important
role), or that they search for better and more favorable welfare systems where they
know their stay will be more convenient. However, there are also some fears that some
of them may be sold to traffickers in human beings or be used for various criminal
activities (children are very vulnerable to a high degree of exploitation in the hands of
third parties). Regarding the latter issue, the Czech Republic should try to improve
records of unaccompanied minors’ movements and activities, thereby having more
chances to prevent any sort of child abuse.
Asylum and other forms of humanitarian protection
The asylum issue has, in various contexts, been touched many times above. Therefore,
let us mention two statuses and some problems connected with their application. Act
No. 326/1999 Coll., on Residence of Aliens in the Territory of the Czech Republic, as
amended, clearly stipulates two specific statuses within a temporary stay – 1) a visa for
a stay exceeding 90 days for the purpose of temporary refuge and 2) a visa for a stay
exceeding 90 days for the purpose of a “tolerance stay”/”leave to remain” status. The
first stay is provided for a maximum of 360 days, with the opportunity to renew it many
times (providing the original purpose is still valid). The “tolerance stay” can spring from
both the “Act on Residence of Aliens” (an immigrant is given this status because he/she
cannot be expelled back to the mother state if his/her life could be threatened there)
and the Asylum Act (an immigrant can be given this status when he/she is in the final
stage of the asylum procedure: appealing against the judgment of a regional court
refusing his/her asylum). The key issue is that according to the current legislation, a
For example, some problems relating to the appointment of guardians or to the accessibility of health
insurance (see Gladišová 2003)
121
92
person with “tolerance stay” status has no economic and social rights, he/she is not
allowed to work while, at the same time, has no chance (with really very limited
exceptions) to be financially supported through any state social programmes.
Obviously, it leads to their social exclusion and complex marginalization within society
(Cižinský / Pořízek 2003). It stimulates them to enter the “gray/black labour market.” In
this context, the situation for holders of a temporary protection status is much better.
According to the current legislation, in terms of employment and study their situation is
identical to the situation of foreigners as holders of permanent residence permits
(Cižinský / Pořízek 2003). However, one must say that the state is aware of these
problems and they are dealing with this situation through legislative changes at present
(autumn 2003).
National minorities and related issues
Analyzing the issue of national minorities is not relevant to the topic of this study.
Representatives of national minorities in the Czech Republic are those citizens of the
Czech Republic who identify themselves with other than Czech/Moravian/Silesian
ethnicity. They, or their ancestors, came to the country a long time ago (see also the first
chapter on historical patterns) and they are, to a large extent, very well adapted and
integrated into the majority society (about 6% of the whole population - see more in
Zpráva 2002a). However, two aspects are worth mentioning.
Firstly, the Roma ethnic group represents one exception in which one can trace a strong
and direct relationship between current international migration movements and
“settled compatriots”. As interviewee No. 17 mentions, the Czech Republic has always
been for Slovak Romas, at least after the Second World War, a destination rather than
transit country. According to unofficial data, some 20,000 “new Roma” immigrants of
Slovak citizenship currently live in the Czech Republic, mainly with their “Czech
relatives” (Lidové 2003). (Official data on migration by ethnic/national background do
not exist because this information is not collected in Czech statistics122). (However, as No.
17 pinpoints, there is only one Roma community in the Czech Republic – the “Slovak one,”
as the Czech one disappeared as a result of the Second World War.) It seems that
currently the Roma inflow from Slovakia to the Czech Republic is continuing,123 as
Slovak Romas have recently been cut off from more beneficial social subsidies in their
mother country (now a maximum of 10,500 Slovak crowns per a family – see also No.
17). They think their situation in the Czech Republic will be more favorable. Interviewee
No. 17 states that the Romas’ migration to the Czech Republic is mainly economicallydriven. Most of these Romas do not settle in the country, but instead go back to Slovakia
after they have made some money. No. 12 also mentions that the whole problem is more
However, even the statistics that provide such data (the census) is, in relation to Romas, not reliable at
all. Whereas according to the latest census (from March 1, 2001), 11,716 Romas stayed in the country,
estimates give a more realistic picture of 150,000-300,000 (Zpráva 2002a)
123
There is also a rather limited migration of “Czech Romas” from the Czech Republic (particularly via the
asylum seeker status) further to the West (recently mainly to the United Kingdom). Their reasons are
similar to those that expel Romas from Slovakia – a mixture of the xenophobia of the local population and
the desire to improve their living standard. As interviewee No. 6 highlights, the Roma in the Czech Republic
know conditions in Finland, Norway, Belgium and the United Kingdom pretty well. Their migration has been
a sort of a seasonal labour/holiday stay. Those who went were representatives of the Roma “middle class,”
and not the poorest (No. 5). Currently this outflow is declining. However, it may rise again in the future, No.
5 adds
122
93
complex and, inter alia, Romas often lose housing in Slovakia (due to the privatization
process) and have to escape from usury, attacks by skinheads, etc. (see No. 14 and No. 17).
No. 15 adds that the integration of Romas into the Czech society is a long and timeconsuming process. Interviewee No. 26 argues that the Roma question in the Czech
Republic cannot be solved until the social structure of the Roma population in the country
changes – now there are only mafia-like structures and there is no “normal” middle class.
R 9 points out there are huge cultural differences between the Czech majority population
and Romas. Their integration is made very difficult, if even possible. The same is stressed
by No. 10 who also talks about the Roma issue as a totally different “story” compared to
that of other ethnic groups in the Czech Republic. No. 12 mentions that there is no objective
information about Romas; instead, negative information prevails. No. 17 stresses that
Romas do not compete with Czechs on the labour market. What may be problematic is
their huge concentration in one spot and tensions with local populations over their
different cultural habits and customs. No. 6 adds that two problems burden the issue above
all - the Slovak side does not cooperate too much with the Czech one, and it is mainly the
Romas at the very bottom of the social ladder (the poorest) who therefore have the most
problems when integrating into Czech society. Furthermore, what influences the situation
is that Slovakia is considered to be a safe country (No. 2). Respondent No. 26 points out
that there are two main barriers erected against successful integration attempts: the
“internal one” (cultural specificities of the Roma community), and the “external one”
(existing discrimination against Romas, mainly in education and employment fields).
Secondly, it seems that the relationships between some other “old” and “new”
immigrants (and, as the case may be, between their associations) in the Czech Republic
may be far from close, not to mention perfect. One can give an example of two: “old”
versus “new” Ukrainian groups and associations. (This example is clearly expressed by
No. 10). Other respondents mention similar problems (mutual relations between “old” and
“new”, regardless of whether or not the “old” have already obtained Czech citizenship, are
rather antagonistic) when taking into account Vietnamese – No. 1, No. 14 - and Arabs
(Kurds) - No. 10).
5.5. Conclusions
- Until recently, Czech migration policies and practices have suffered from some
weaknesses. To summarize, no coherent and mutually complementary policies with
regard to immigration have been practiced. Nevertheless, since 1999 some very
positive developments regarding international migration and immigrants’ integration
have taken place. First, new migratory legislation and related practices have been
adopted. Most importantly and despite some gaps, almost all of the obligations of the
EU Acquis and its implementation in the migration sphere have been fulfilled.
- There are other activities launched by the state bodies that are worth mentioning: first,
the Ministry of the Interior took the initiative to conceptualize and systematize the
whole migratory issue. For example, a new ministerial advisory commission has been
established and a “Concept of immigration integration policy” has been worked out.
An important initiative has also come from the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
while bringing in a new programme: “Proposal for Active Selection of Skilled Foreign
Workers”.
94
- It has been proven that in many spheres, the current Czech Republic has a migratory
reality similar to other developed democracies and tackles the same sorts of migratory
problems. Firstly, one can mention the importance involving state bodies, NGOs and
international organisations on issues like the illegal employment of third country
nationals, marriages of convenience, expulsion (including its procedures and
enforcement), pre-expulsion detention and other forms of detention of migrants,
readmission and voluntary returns, and irregular migration (including trafficking/
smuggling in human beings and vulnerable groups – mainly unaccompanied minors).
Secondly, as in other developed immigration countries: 1) “family reunification” in the
Czech Republic is one of the most important channels through which immigrants
arrive in the country; 2) the state is not able to get rid of many foreigners without a
right to stay there, are not allowed to go through, stay or work there, even though they
operate there; 3) generally, combating illegal/irregular migration/immigration is not
very effective.
- When analysing the given state of affairs, one paradox has appeared: while there is an
obvious attempt to build a sort of “multicultural approach” toward immigration/
immigrants in the Czech Republic, some aspects of both legislation and practice do not
coincide with this goal. One can point out the almost interminable period immigrants
must wait to get permanent residence status and citizenship. On the other hand, the
very liberal policy of providing trade licenses to foreigners does not correspond with
the overall overcautious regime that addresses the arrival, stay, and employment of
foreigners in the territory of the Czech Republic.
- Analyzing the national minority issue is not relevant to the topic of this study (current
migration and immigrants’ integration issues). In fact, only two issues are related, and
these issues overlap: the Romas and immigrants’ organizational structures. Regarding
the former point, The Roma question as a whole in the Czech Republic is a very
difficult one and its solution is a long-term process (the topic as such goes beyond the
scope of this study). As for the latter, it seems that relationship between some “old”
and “new” immigrants/communities of the same origin (and, as the case may be,
between their associations) in the Czech Republic is far from close, not to mention,
perfect. (e.g. Ukrainians, Vietnamese, Arabs and Kurds).
95
6. Integration policies and practices
6.1. Particular geographic/administrative concentration of migrants
Immigrants’ spatial patterns have important implications in terms of their impact upon
the host society. Understanding immigrants’ spatial concentration/deconcentration
processes is necessary in order to apply relevant policies and practices toward them.
Besides the already mentioned important role of Prague and other major cities,124 there
are other features that are worthwhile to pinpoint. When analyzing immigration on a
district level, two patterns appeared in particular: Firstly,125 there is an “East-West
migratory gradient” (see above in relation to foreign economic activities) indicating the
more significant role of international migration (in relative terms) in western parts of the
country compared to eastern ones. The more one moves toward the west in the
country, the more the migration issue becomes “visible” and important. Secondly, the
immigrant ethnic groups representing neighboring countries (Slovaks, Poles, Germans,
Austrians) have, besides Prague and the Central Bohemia region, a higher
concentration in Czech/Moravian/Silesian districts that border on their mother
countries (e.g. Čermáková 2002). The percentage of foreigners in border zones vis-à-vis
the interior of the Czech Republic, when contrasted with the spatial patterns of the
Czech majority, reveals essential information (table 43). Results show that in major
cities (mainly Prague), the concentration of immigrants is greater than the spatial
pattern of the Czech majority. In districts bordering on EU countries, their concentration
is approximately equal to that characteristic of the Czech majority population. In
relation to other parts of the state border zone and the interior as a whole, foreigners’
concentration is not too significant vis-à-vis the Czech majority population.
Table 43. Foreigners’(holders of permanent residence permits and visas issued for a
period exceeding 90 days) spatial patterns by geographical position of
districts, 2000 (stock)
Districts / type
Foreigners total
City
Bordering on:
European Union
Other countries
Other (interior)
Total
75,287
68,542
33,127
35,415
57,122
200,951
Population
Czech Republic
2,043,328
4,292,437
1,736,872
2,555,565
3,956,016
10,291,781
Foreigners
Population
(%)
Czech Republic (%)
37.5
19.9
34.1
41.7
16.5
16.9
17.6
24.8
28.4
38.4
100.0
100.0
Source: Čermáková 2002; Čermáková / Drbohlav 2002
Note: Districts where foreigners registered themselves do not have to correspond to those where
they actually operate (it mainly concerns small businessmen).
124
Also Uherek (2003), based on imperfect results (regarding reporting on foreigners) of the Census of
March 1, 2001, informs us how a share of foreigners of the whole population increases when climbing up
the ladder of the settlement hierarchical structure (from small villages – with less than 500 inhabitants –
0.5%, to the largest cities – with more than 100,000 inhabitants – 1.9%)
125
Excluding Prague and its close vicinity
96
The index of dissimilarity shows that Vietnamese and Slovaks have the most similar
spatial patterns to the Czech majority population (by district), whereas patterns related
to Chinese, Russians, and Americans, especially due to their huge concentration to
Prague, are very different (see table 44).
Table 44. Segregation of selected ethnic immigrant groups (the index of dissimilarity by
district, vis-à-vis the Czech population), foreign-holders of permanent
residence permits and visas issued for a period exceeding 90 days, 2000
(stock)
Foreigners
Vietnam
Slovakia
Ukraine
Germany
Poland
USA
Russia
China
Total
Index of dissimilarity
19.7
24.2
32.5
36.0
42.8
51.1
52.2
73.0
25.4
Source: Čermáková 2002; Čermáková / Drbohlav 2002
Note: “Conceptually, the index represents the proportion (percentage) of the minority population
that would have to move in order to achieve an even distribution” (Kaplan / Holloway 1998).
In searching for immigrants’ spatial concentration at a local level, one can be referred
to results of the census of 2001, or Uherek (2003). Respondents mentioned that several
other localities often demonstrated a very good co-existence between the majority and
ethnic minority groups: No. 9 pinpoints a smaller city of Blansko with its Mongolian,
Ukrainian and Slovak communities; No. 10 speaks about Arabs in Teplice; No. 12 and No.
14 about Armenians in Kuřim. No. 16 highlights that so far there has been no apparent
ghettoization in the Czech Republic. No. 6 summarizes by proclaiming that foreigners go
where they can find work.
6.2. Available reception assistance programmes for migrants; specific
reintegration programmes and integration initiatives/best practices
An important shift toward a more multifaceted approach can be identified over time. As
a matter of fact, while during the 1990s only two aspects were pinpointed and, to a
limited extent, discussed – harmonizing with the EU (for geopolitical reasons) and
combating illegal/irregular migration movements (for defense and security reasons) –
other issues have appeared on the agenda since the late 1990s. These conversations
center around two points in particular: 1) meeting the social, economic, and cultural
needs of immigrants who have already been in the country and are allowed to stay
there, and 2) designing a programme that would bring new immigrants who could
contribute to building the country’s wealth - to complement the Czech domestic labour
market which is suffering severely from very low fertility rates and the aging process.
97
Firstly, there is the state assistance programme for those foreigners who have received
asylum in the Czech Republic. A consistent, albeit limited, integration programme for
specific migrant groups was launched as early as 1991. On December 20, 1991, the
government of the Czech Republic formulated principles and directions regarding the
integration process of refugees in the Governmental Decree No. 536. Another integration
scheme of state assistance programme was brought into effect in mid-1994:
„Supplementary Instruction“ (Government Decree of November 17, 1993 No. 643 and
the Instruction of the Ministry of the Interior of May 27, 1994, U – 1027/94 for district
authorities concerning the integration of persons granted refugee status in the Czech
Republic) (see more in Drbohlav 1997b). The continued development and
implementation of this programme (concentrating on housing, knowledge of the Czech
language, and requalification) has recently been set out in the Government Resolution
of January 22, 2003, No. 86126.
In fact, a “four-level hierarchical structure” comes into play when the Government, the
Ministry of the Interior, regional authorities, and municipal authorities are involved. The
scheme (state integration programme - integration scheme) is based on the premise that
newly established regions are responsible for finding possible housing127 for refugees via
their “municipalities” while respecting a quota system (fulfilled by the Government).
This predetermines that, for example, out of 100 refugees who are allowed to make use
of the scheme in 2003, Prague is to provide 16 and the Ústí nad Labem region only 2.
(Altogether, 14,000,000 Czech crowns were allocated for these purposes in 2003128).
Housing is rented from city or municipality councils by a refugee on a year-to-year basis
with the possibility of extension (the price is to follow the specificities of the given place
and time). After five years, an agreement between the municipality and the participating
refugee is to be signed for an unspecified time period. Since 2003, regions have been
provided with funds (per year) from the Ministry of Finance, with the state contribution
for housing itself amounting to 150,000 Czech crowns per refugee renting the apartment
(the head of the household), plus an additional 50,000 Czech crowns for each refugee
sharing the apartment with the given head of household. An additional contribution is
made to the municipality for the development of its infrastructure based on the number
of refugees leasing apartments. This amounts to 150,000 Czech crowns per tenant (the
head of the household) and 10,000 for additional tenants.
Learning the Czech language is an inevitable part of the whole integration programme.
One must pass an exam proving one’s ability to communicate in Czech in order to enter
the programme and be provided with housing (with some exceptions). Teaching
courses are organised by the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport via selected NGOs
and they are free of charge (the course length is approximately 150 hours for groups and
100 hours for individuals at a minimum, and usually for no longer than 6 months).
During this period, an applicant (refugee) can stay in private housing or in an
integration centre. If necessary, a refugee is to be assisted with job-requalification while
being registered as unemployed at a given local/regional job center. When dealing with
Basic rules governing the services that successful asylum seekers are to be provided with have firmly
been incorporated into the Asylum law (No. 325/1999 Coll., as amended)
127
However, a refugee himself/herself can search for housing, too
128
More than 75,000,000 Czech crowns were spent between 1994 and 2002
126
98
refugees, the state supports the activities of NGOs in the following fields above all:
1) a programme that helps solve refugees’ unemployment problems,
2) social and juridical counseling,
3) organisational help when searching for housing and, consequently, accepting it,
4) assistance communicating with the state administration and self-governments and
5) monitoring the whole integration process (see Návrh 2003).
The aforementioned model has also been used for compatriots who lived in selected
remote areas or regions in jeopardy (e.g., people of Czech origin in Romania or
Kazakhstan - see above) and decided to return to their country of origin. However, this
resettlement programme for compatriots was terminated129 on June 31, 2002, and thus no
compatriots have arrived since 2002. A new programme for compatriots’ resettlement is
being prepared at present. Also, Bosnians who were staying under the temporary refuge
umbrella and were suffering from severe health problems were able to make use of the
programme until 2000 (slightly more than 100 persons). A resettlement programme
organised by the Czechoslovakian/Czech Government for Volhynian/Chernobyl Czechs
in the beginning of the1990s was successful, but really unique (see the section on ethnic
migration).
In sum, the given state integration programme, tailored particularly to successful
asylum seekers, is functioning and fulfills its basic goals well. However, two potential
and real shortcomings have become visible. Firstly, the programme was designed and
works only for very limited numbers of foreigners (altogether 648 persons between 1994
and 2002) (see also above numbers of asylum seekers who got asylum and, hence, can
enter the programme). Apparently, even under these conditions there are not enough
flats offered by municipalities and respective regions and the number of persons
entering the programme yearly has been diminishing (between 1999 and 2002 it was 110,
78, 47 and 44, persons, respectively – Návrh 2003). Secondly, by shifting some of the
responsibilities from districts to newly established regional authorities,130 the state
integration programme has been “frozen”. Thus far in 2003, no persons have been
provided with housing under the given scheme. As in other social areas dealing with
the issue of immigrants’ integration on the regional level, without the necessary
experience and human capital it will take some time to be ready for new challenges.
Secondly, an important initiative has come from the Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs. In line with demographic parameters, with the situation on the Czech labour
market and with what is going on in Western Europe (e.g. in Germany, Ireland and the
United Kingdom), officials have passed a “Proposal for the Active Selection of Skilled
Foreign Workers.” Government Resolution No. 975 of September 26, 2001, is based on
this proposal. Under this resolution, the Government approved a new, active approach
to migration management and defined the fundamental conceptual principles of the
See the Governmental Resolution No. 120, of February 17, 2001
As of January 1, 2003 district authorities were cancelled and responsibilities for immigrants’ integration
fell to newly established regional authorities - see Constitutional Act No. 347/1997 Coll
129
130
99
active selection of qualified foreign workers („The Pilot Project for the Active Selection
of Qualified Foreign Workers131“ - Government Resolution No. 720 of July 10, 2002).
„One of the decisive reasons for having an active approach to migration is the impact
of the demographic development and its projection. The impact of demographic ageing
on the systems of social security may only be partially resolved by the arrival of new
payers with different family patterns. The requirements of the labour market for more
qualified specialists will be difficult to satisfy purely through migration. Nevertheless,
the arrival of young, qualified specialists from abroad, who will settle and integrate into
the society, can at least partially contribute to resolving the envisaged problems. The
active control of migration does not represent a new discovery. However, it has only
been actively applied by a few states. The objective of the concept is to use easily
controllable, simple and cheap tools for the transition from a passive reaction to existing
migration, to the active management of one of the segments of the economically
motivated migration. The present document describes in detail the entire pilot project
and determines the fundamental characteristic features of the entire system. When
preparing this project, emphasis was placed on its pilot nature, which will be
accentuated especially in the first year of the project implementation, when the set-up
of the new system will be tested on a small quantity and range of people. The entire
system has the potential for further expansion, both in terms of numbers and in terms
of the range of persons involved“ (The Pilot 2002).
The system is to be tested on immigrants from Kazakhstan, Croatia and Bulgaria and on
younger, highly skilled/qualified workers in preferred professions, those with some
experience in the Czech Republic, and those speaking Czech and other languages. „The
Pilot Project for the Active Selection of Qualified Foreign Workers“ sets quotas for those
who will be accepted during the pilot project: 600132 persons in 2003 and 1,400 in 2004. It
is likely that after finishing the pilot project and launching the programme, no other
quotas will be applied.133 The Project has a potential importance for immigrants’
integration. Those who come and are accepted within the Project will have a chance to
obtain a permanent residence permit after a two and half-year stay (whereas under
normally existing conditions it would take them 10 years). It is expected that family
members will also be allowed to enjoy the same, “easier” policy. In sum, a smooth
integration process into Czech society and given municipalities is envisaged regarding
those who come under the umbrella of the Project. After some delay in launching the
Project (because of catastrophic floods in summer 2002 and, consequently, an overall
lack of financial sources), it will start in July 2003.
Only time will show whether and how the Project works. Let us only point out that such
immigration alone (regardless of its “quantitative and qualitative parameters”) cannot
solve the aging problems and cannot stop the population in the country from shrinking
(see more in Replacement 2001; Burcin / Kučera 2002). However, it is at least a good
It was inspired by the existing Quebecois model
However, 300 persons will be allowed to enter the system from within the Czech Republic (reserved for
those foreigners who have already been staying here)
133
However, it is deemed that this recruiting system will be parallel to one that was previously
implemented under the 326/1999 Act on the Stay of Aliens on the Territory of the Czech Republic –
providing visas for a stay exceeding 90 days and other statuses)
131
132
100
initiative when starting to compete - if not on the worldwide scale, then on the European
one - for foreign labour force that can help fill in the gaps on the Czech labour market
(advantages of “the sooner, the better” approach).
Interviewee No. 12 also appreciates this approach. No. 6 argues that if we want to adhere
to the “Lisbon criteria” (the employment rate: 70%) we have to accept foreigners, and the
aforementioned programme is one of the ways to reach it.
A resettlement programme (realised in 1991-1993) for Chernobyl/Volhynia Czechs who
were severely hit by the Chernobyl catastrophe was a successful, albeit unique, activity
(see the section on ethnic immigration above). Since 2001, there has been a programme
based on a similar philosophy of using state support to address many spheres of
immigrants’ lives. This programme was helping Czech compatriots in some selected
remote territories to get to their “historical motherland.” In 2002 there were negotiations
between respective ministries about how to design a new re-settlement model.
Nevertheless, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is responsible for handling this
issue, has not yet officially submitted the proposed model for a final settlement.
Interviewee No. 10 pinpoints “ethnic evenings” organised by the NGO Counseling Centre
for Integration as a perfect and successful activity putting ethnic immigrant groups together
with the majority population (e.g. in the city of Ústí nad Labem). She also mentions (along
with No. 12) established community centers as another good example (e.g. in Ústí nad
Labem, Praha, Brno). No. 14 mentions good activities coming from the job center in Prague
5 that organises an intensive Czech course for immigrants free of charge. In sum, No. 9
points out that despite successes in the integration of foreigners in the Czech Republic and
despite having a good “theory”, in practice we lack a “spirit of integration.” Interviewees
No. 11 and 14 cast some doubts on the integration programme for refugees while calling
for improvements (more apartments need to be made available and sooner – see also No.
3, language courses should be organised in a better way, etc.). No. 12 agrees, while
recommending that officials shift the responsibility of running the programme from the
state to the regional level. Though admitting some problems, No. 10 evaluates the
integration programme on the whole as quite functional. No. 13 supports the more
intensive involvement of representatives from given ethnic communities into the whole
process of integration (e.g. via policemen, translators, attorneys, judges, members of
various committees, etc. of different ethnic backgrounds). Respondent No. 15 emphasises
that so far the state has had more experience with those who have “great integration
potential,” and there is still lack of experience with those who have to overcome many
different obstacles in their integration process. No. 3 and others call for more cooperation
between the state sector, NGOs, and regional and municipal administrations. Regions,
instead of districts, should become the basic pillars of integration policy. In addition to
foreigners, the Czech majority population should be one of the target groups of the
integration programme (to strengthen positive attitudes towards foreigners). No. 3 also
mentions that the wait for a permanent residence status and citizenship for foreigners is
too long. Interviewees No. 2 and No. 3 notice and appreciate that when integrating into
Czech society, foreigners do not have to loose their cultural specificities. No. 24 calls for a
more active role on the part of the state (active migration and integration management)
and for different approaches toward individual ethnic immigrant groups respecting their
cultural specificities. No. 25 strongly supports shifting integration activities “from the top to
101
the bottom” – to the local level. No. 28 and No. 29 would support more intensive
participation by ethnic immigrant communities in designing the Czech migration and
integration policies. No. 30 points out that the state should also systematically take care of
marginal immigrant groups – namely, independent foreign children and youths.
6.3. Education and other cultural programmes
Foreigners’ access to education/study in the country is subject to the same conditions
as Czech citizens. Even children who stay as undocumented immigrants must, if
immigrants request, be allowed regular attendance at school.134 To study of free of
charge at high schools and universities, one must fulfill the prerequisite of knowing the
Czech language. However, in contrast with some other developed countries, the Czech
Republic does not take care of teaching Czech to foreigners who are rather poor in this
knowledge. Accordingly, there are no mandatory courses organised at basic schools for
those foreign children who do not understand Czech. One exception concerns national
ethnic minorities (citizens of the Czech Republic) who can take advantage of an
opportunity to be educated in their mother languages within a special “national/ethnic
education system.” Regarding learning the Czech language, the state assists only two
groups of foreigners in practice - those who already have asylum status (see the above
state integration programme), and those who ask for it. In this latter case, NGO
representatives teach Czech directly to asylum seekers in asylum centres. In addition
to this activity, selected NGOs135 (see Drbohlav 2003a) take care of a relatively wide
spectrum of cultural programmes (sport, music, other arts, producing hand-made
products, trips to the countryside, etc.) that are organised mainly for asylum seekers
and their children in asylum centers. However, currently some of the activities also
target other immigrant groups.
6.4. Access to health care and other social services
There are several points of view through which one can describe basic principles of the
health care system and other issues in relation to foreigners in the Czech Republic
(Dobiášová et al. 2003; Meduna 2003). First of all, those who ask for a visa are not
required to automatically submit their health records (regarding applicants for a visa for
a period exceeding 90 days, submitting a health record was mandatory until 2001).
However, if there is suspicion of a serious illness, one can be asked to submit it by the
police or an embassy. Logically, it is envisaged that an immigrant will start receiving
health care services after arriving in the country. A public insurance service can be
used in the Czech Republic only by foreign employees and holders of a permanent
residence permit. Other foreigners, such as small businessmen (holders of a trade
license), children of foreigners who stay in the country under the umbrella of a visa for
a period exceeding 90 days, etc., are supposed to insure themselves by contract
(Dobiášová et al 2003).136 However, this is an expensive solution when keeping in mind
many foreigners’ limited financial sources. Furthermore, foreigners older than 70 are
See regulation No. 21836/2000-11 (Hronková/Hradečná 2003)
Let us mention, for example: The Counseling Centre for Integration, The Organization for Aid to
Refugees, The Counseling Centre for Refugees, The Society of Citizens Assisting Migrants and The Czech
Catholic Charity
136
Asylum seekers’ health care is covered by the state
137
For example, a foreign woman between 48 and 50 years old has to pay 2,510 Czech crowns a month by
contract (Dobiášová et al. 2003)
134
135
102
not allowed to insure themselves at all. To sum up, in terms of foreigners’ access to
health care services, foreigners are, to some extent, discriminated against. The abovementioned reality is behind the reason why “a significant number of immigrants, mostly
whose arrival in the Czech Republic is conditioned by economic reasons, have no
health insurance”138 (Dobiášová et al. 2003).
Besides health insurance, pensions, state social supports/subsidies, social aid and
unemployment benefits form part of the social security system. Immigrants influence
the system, while, at the same time, they remain dependent upon it. The Czech system
of pension payments is “neutral” when differentiating between its own citizens and
foreigners. Legislation in this field does not directly discriminate foreigners (Meduna
2003). However, there is a sort of indirect discrimination, as the current “pay-as-you-go”
system (based on inter-generational solidarity) requires that one has lived in the Czech
Republic for a particular number of years before he/she can enter it. Of course, for a
“stable citizen” it is easier to meet such demands than for rather “mobile foreigners.”
A foreigner can make use of the state social subsidy scheme in the Czech Republic
when he/she has a permanent residence permit or has stayed in the country for more
than 1 year. A more restrictive approach is applied toward families – a child’s allowance
is not paid if the parents live in the Czech Republic but the child lives abroad. This
condition pertains to many economic immigrants. The social aid (and social services)
scheme is based on the same principle as state social support – only those with a
permanent residence permit can qualify. Nevertheless, there is some room for making
exceptions to the rule as long as there are well-founded reasons to do so. In the case of
social services, Czech legislation and practices go against the European Social Charta,
which calls for providing social services to everybody on the territory of the state. One
of the important demands in order to qualify for unemployment benefits is having
worked for more than one year in the last three years (before being unemployed and
asking for the benefits). A period spent abroad can be included. This stipulation means
that there is no discrimination between foreigners and the domestic majority
population. Conditions under which one contributes to the whole system when
employed are the same for foreigners and citizens of the Czech Republic. However, in
contrast with pensions, the amount paid to a foreigner (under the state employment
scheme from which the unemployed are paid) when he has a job cannot be “exported.”
In other words, if a foreigner leaves the Czech Republic, no such payments can be
returned to him/her.
To summarize, the Czech social security system is designed in a way that corresponds
to social security models typical of most European countries and it does not prevent
the successful integration of foreigners into the Czech society. Some of the obstacles
mentioned above do not exist in practice at all, since some possible problems are
solved by mutual cooperation based on international bilateral or multilateral
agreements (mostly touching pensions, family allowances, unemployment benefits,
maternity grants and death allowances - Meduna 2003). Furthermore, only with a
limited number of exceptions, the Czech social security system is in harmony with
principles formulated in the European Social Charta. Furthermore, any particular
shortcomings could be amended.
138
According to a study on Ukrainian labour immigrants (Křečková/Tůmová et al. 2003), 27% of 645
respondents who participated in a survey and have stayed in the country for more than one year were
not insured
103
6.5. Participation of migrants in civic and political life
Generally, the Declaration of Basic Human Rights and Freedoms defines possibilities for
political participation in the broadest sense of the word.139 These declarations are
further elaborated upon and embodied in given legislative documents. There are
several areas where there are, in fact, no differences between Czech citizens and
foreigners and, thus, no discrimination against foreigners. Let us mention, for example,
the section on public discussion (including, for instance, publishing activities, radio and
TV broadcasting, freedom of speech), the right to petition, the right to assemble and the
right to strike. No differences exist between foreigners and Czech citizens (provided the
foreigner is legally employed) in the context of associating with trade unions or
churches. However, there is discrimination by law of foreigners compared to the Czech
majority in several other spheres. For example, a foreigner cannot be a member of
associations’ committees,140 unless those associations are considered beneficial.141
Membership is possible in professional chambers for those who obtained their
education in the Czech Republic; if not, equivalent studies have to be completed. A
similar sort of discrimination exists within the university sector and its administration
and self-government system. The right to vote is exclusively reserved for Czech citizens.
Nevertheless, laws regulating elections for the European Parliament, municipal
governments, and participation in local referendums enables foreigners-holders of a
permanent residence permit who are officially registered and reside in a particular
municipality to participate in elections, provided there is an international agreement in
effect. This possibility reflects demands for compliance with entrance into the EU. The
right to associate with political parties is also reserved only for Czech citizens, in some
cases only for those having a permanent residence permit in the Czech Republic. Some
professions in the state sector can be taken over only by citizens of the Czech Republic
like, for example, president, member of parliament, senator, judge and so forth. The
same concerns army personnel. In contrast with the beginning of the 1990s, the situation
in this regard is now more restrictive vis-à-vis foreigners.
All in all, the participation of migrants in the civic and political life of the Czech Republic
is, more or less, in harmony with the situation in many other West European developed
countries. In only one case do Czech policies not comply with what is stipulated in the
European Social Charta. The globalization process has brought more people from
abroad to given nation-states. This new situation is a challenge to existing systems of the
Czech state administration, self-government, and public authorities and, in general, at
different regional hierarchical levels. One can argue in harmony with Uhl (2003) that if
society is to accept these changes in a democratic way, even more of a share of the
public authority must be left to foreigners.142
Respondent No. 24 highlights that immigrant communities in the Czech Republic are, due
to given gaps in the legislation, not well organised. They function as cultural clubs rather
than standard associations, and “this situation should be changed.” Among experts, there
is an almost unanimous call to enable immigrants to participate more fully in civic and
political life.
The Czech National Council (No. 2/1993 Coll.) defines the rights (and duties) of Czech citizens
The Ministry of the Interior does not allow it
141
However, foreigners can enter associations that have already been established
142
See, for example, the Recommendations of the Council of Europe (2000) 15, of September 13, 2000
(Uhl 2003)
139
140
104
6.6. Public perceptions/opinions
There are three important factors that are at play with one another: immigrants, the
public and politicians. The public’s perception of immigrant issues is an important
factor because, to some extent, it conditions the inflow of immigrants, shapes their
behavior in the host country, and also influences politicians’ behavior (whose goal,
inter alia, is to be re-elected). As a corollary, politicians have to listen, at least partly, to
the voice of the public. On the other hand, public opinion has an “internal power” to
affect persons who have not decided yet about a given issue. Regarding international
migration, 49%143 (as of February 2002) admitted that their opinion is sometimes
influenced by the results of opinion polls. This statistic indicates how public
perceptions and opinions are composed (see Občané 2001). Obviously, this cannot be
neglected when designing the right migration policy in the broadest sense of the word.
6.7. Conclusions
- An important shift toward a more multifaceted approach to immigration issues can be
identified over time. Since the very end of the 1990s, the state has started taking a more
systematic approach to the issue and intensively meeting the main social, economic
and cultural needs of some migrant categories. The state integration programme (for
refugees, compatriots and the few holders of a temporary refuge status) supports such
an endeavor. Also, the state has started attracting a new foreign labour force through
its programme called “Proposal for Active Selection of Skilled Foreign Workers”. Under
this programme, new immigrants are recruited who could contribute to building the
country’s wealth, as the Czech domestic labour market has suffered heavy blows by
the low fertility rate and the aging process.
- Regarding the provision of education, health, and other social services, as well as the
guarantee of rights in the broadest sense of the word, the Czech Republic does not
differ too much from the EU in terms of its practices. However, there are still some
shortcomings that deflect the Czech Republic from real “multiculturalism”: inadequate
attention given to improving foreigners’ knowledge of the Czech language, and
particular problems associated with foreigners’ access to health care services and
other social subsidies.
- All in all, the participation of migrants in the civic and political life of the Czech
Republic is, more or less, in harmony with the situation in many other West European
developed countries. There are only a few exceptions in which Czech reality does not
correspond to what is considered within the bounds of “standard approaches.” Let us
only stress that there is a questionable policy being practiced as regards the right to
vote (at all levels of regional administration), as this right is exclusively reserved to
Czech citizens.
- Public perception/opinion cannot be neglected when designing a broadly-defined
effective migration policy.
143
Since 1995, the picture has been pretty stable – revolving around 50 percent (Občané 2000)
105
7. Conclusions144 and recommendations
The most important lesson learned from analysing the current migratory reality in the
Czech Republic is that current Czech migratory trends have been shifting quickly
toward those typical of the developed Western World.
These parallels concern:
1) quantitative aspects (numbers of immigrants – “stocks and flows”);
2) the conditions of migration and, consequently, the many “mechanisms” through
which migration is materialized;
3) the nature and development of the whole set of migration policies and practices (see
also Drbohlav 2002).
From a more detailed perspective, one cannot ignore the manner in which Czech
migratory patterns resemble those characteristic of the contemporary situation in the
EU. For example, economic reasons are primarily behind migratory “pulls;” there is
growing pressure for illegal/irregular migration; discrimination against migrant workers
exists; highly urbanized areas and areas near the state border constitute the most
significant poles of migratory attractiveness; immigration has contributed to
fragmentation and specialization within the labour market; and stereotypes influence
how individual ethnic immigrant groups are perceived by the public.
Accordingly, this study both indirectly and directly contributes to proving the fact that
the current migratory reality in the Czech Republic might, to some extent, be explained
by well-known migration theories, namely: the neoclassical economic theory, the world
system theory, the dual labour market theory, the network theory, and the institutional
theory (see e.g. Massey et al. 1998; Brettell / Hollifield 2000; Drbohlav 2002).
Regarding pinpointing some concrete results, the study offers several key propositions:
7.1. Overall migratory trends
7.1.1. History
- During the previous 150 years, a trend of emigration dominated over immigration on
the territory of the current Czech Republic. Overall experiences with immigration were
limited and rather specific (due particularly to the “isolationist policies” of the
communist state vis-à-vis the developed world). Nevertheless, one trend is common
across time and political regimes – Prague and the border zones in the western part of
the country primarily experienced international migration. Whereas under socialism
these areas were the most important emigration channels through which migration
occurred, at present and under a democratic Czech Republic based on a labour market
economy, these areas are the most important destinations for immigrants.
General patterns and trends rather than concrete details and figures are pointed out here (for more
information – see the text above)
144
106
7.1.2. Overall migration scales
- The Czech Republic has quickly become a transit and immigration country. As of the
end of 2002, 231,608 immigrants were officially residing in the country. Despite
problems regarding statistical recording (due to the “recategorization” status), it seems
that these trends have been intensifying over time. Both permanent and long-term
emigration of the Czech population, as well as short-term cross border movements, are
not huge at all and it seems that these movements have been decreasing over time.
- Two source countries dominate among those that supply the Czech Republic with
“permanent immigrants” and are closely linked with family reunion processes (flows
a year) - Slovakia and Ukraine. As for the „stock“, the most important source countries
of permanent immigrants are: Vietnam, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine. While the
number of Slovaks and Poles have been decreasing or stabilised, the number of
Vietnamese and Ukrainians has been on the rise (1997 versus 2002).
- The predominance of “economic migrants” coming from Slovakia and Ukraine to the
country is clearly evident. Furthermore, it seems that this sort of polarization has been
growing over time (2000 versus 2002 – where comparison is possible). Out of the ten
most important source countries, four pertain to countries of the former Soviet Union.
- In contrast to the number of immigrants residing in the Czech Republic for economic
and family reasons, asylum seekers represent much smaller numbers. The largest
number of asylum seekers between 1997 and 2002 came from Ukraine. Other important
source countries are Afghanistan, Moldova, India, Vietnam, Romania and Russia,
recently also Slovakia. Among asylum seekers, those arriving from countries of the
former Soviet Union played a very important role (out of all selected important source
countries between 1997 and 2002, they represented 42%).
- Many countries of origin of asylum seekers to the Czech Republic are also among those
whose citizens are caught while trying illegally to cross the Czech state border. The
total number of foreigners caught while illegally attempting to cross the border
decreased significantly in 2002145. Nationals of some of the countries (India, China,
Vietnam, Moldova, Germany and Poland) are permanently illegally on the move
through the Czech Republic.
- One could probably estimate the current number of irregular immigrants in the Czech
Republic (as of the very end of 2000) at somewhere between 295,000 and 335,000. Of
this figure, 165,000 might be irregular immigrants active on the Czech labour market,
30,000 their dependents, and 100,000 – 140,000 transit migrants (now perhaps slightly
less). While there has been an overall trend of decreasing inflows of legal migrants, the
number of illegal/irregular migrants/immigrants has been increasing (measured via
perceptions of immigrants by the Czech public).
- Regarding the future migration situation in the Czech Republic, existing trends could
probably be further extrapolated. There is no reason not to believe that, generally, the
situation in the migration field (including overall scales) will develop in the Czech
Republic very similar to the situation in Western European democracies.
145
The difficult problem of interpreting this fact is left aside
107
7.1.3. Motivation
- Unambiguously, the most important reasons for immigration to the Czech Republic
(excluding transit migration) are closely tied to economic activities (work and doing
business), along with family-based movements. On a more general level and from the
immigrant country’s perspective, three groups of factors play an important role when
searching for strong “pulls” that attract migrants to the Czech Republic: 1) geographical
(position), 2) political, and 3) economic. These “pulls” often function together and are
mutually linked. From a more specific perspective, “national memory,” public opinion,
supranational dimensions (linked to thegeopolitical orientation), the socio-economic
situation, and “migration-specific instruments” significantly determine the reality in the
migration field.
- Family and informal links play an important “supportive” role in how to get to the
country, where to stay and what to do there.
- A stock of foreign students has been growing over time, while new enrollments (flow)
have recently been slightly diminishing. By far the most important source country
sending students to the Czech Republic is Slovakia.
- Czech compatriots have not been too involved in directly transforming their mother
society since the collapse of communism.
- Currently, there are no strong “push” factors that would propel mass migration
movements of Czech citizens out of their mother country.
7.1.4. Immigrants’ population structures – social role, education/qualifications,
gender, age
- One has to distinguish two very different immigrant groups in the Czech Republic. The
first is an “Eastern” category (mostly representatives of other CEE countries in transition)
and is mainly composed of young males who, in contrast to their high educational/skill
level, are hired for manual, unskilled and underpaid jobs. The second one is a “Western”
category, characterised by a large percentage of immigrants with a high level of education
who are mostly engaged in professional and managerial work (managers, advisers,
language teachers, etc.).
- When simplifying to some extent, there is an overall trend toward “feminization” (the
growth of female participation) of immigration to the Czech Republic. In general, however,
percentages of female immigrants are not as high as males’ (except in one category). The
more “economic” the character of immigration, the smaller the number of women. In fact,
the smallest percentages of female immigrants are involved in “doing business.”
- The immigrants’ age structure (among all legally-residing foreigners) clearly differs from
the structure of the host, majority population. The percentage of foreigners in the
economically active age (15-59) is really huge (86%), whereas the youngest and oldest
segments of immigrants (1-14 and 60+) are represented by rather small numbers both in
absolute and relative terms. This figure demonstrates again that economic opportunities
particularly lure immigrants to the Czech Republic, and so far mainly men. However, a
breakdown by individual immigrant ethnic groups shows that there is no single
homogeneous immigrant population. In other words, while more or less following the
aforementioned trend, immigrants also create a colorful mosaic as a result of their varied
age compositions.146
146
Of course, the overall trend is predetermined by the most numerous ones
108
7.1.5. Regional patterns and the impact of labour and economic migration
(including its conditions)
- The capital city of Prague is a very important migratory destination and high
percentages of immigrants of different types concentrate there. When evaluating
development over time, Prague’s role as an important destination country has been
increasing since 1997, except among foreign recipients of trade licenses. However, the
latest development (2000-2001) regarding some subcategories of immigrants who have
stayed in the country longer than 1 year indicates that the Prague’s attractiveness may
be weakening slightly.
- There is a clear East-West gradient proving that the more westward one moves in the
territory of the Czech Republic, the more intense the influence of immigration.
Important locations include Prague and Central Bohemia, Pilsen and other western
districts (Cheb, Karlovy Vary and Tachov) and, to some extent, also the city of Brno.
These places are highly influenced by direct foreign economic activities.
- The immigrant ethnic groups representing neighboring countries (Slovaks, Poles,
Germans, Austrians) have, besides Prague and the Central Bohemia region, a higher
concentration in Czech/Moravian/Silesian districts that border on their mother
countries.
- The index of dissimilarity shows that Vietnamese and Slovaks have the most similar
spatial distribution patterns to the Czech majority population (by districts) whereas
the patterns related to Chinese, Russians and Americans, especially due to their huge
concentration in Prague, are very different.
- As in other developed immigration countries, the presence of economic immigrants in
the Czech Republic brings with it pros and cons for both the country and the
immigrants themselves (the omnipresent exploitation of immigrants is one such
example). However, the economic impact of immigration upon Czech society cannot
be properly analysed, identified, and understood at this moment due to insufficient
data in Czech statistics. Nevertheless, it is obvious that economically motivated foreign
immigration helps propel transformation processes predominately in the major poles
of urban development, and it is the most important impact of immigrants upon Czech
society. In regard to economic migrants, it was also confirmed that “compatriots’ nets”
(with their supportive roles) have been important factors in attracting immigrants to
and within the Czech Republic.
- Ethnic immigrant groups, in accordance with their own strategies and their specific
spatial concentration patterns, have found specific niches on the Czech labour market,
thereby reshaping its hitherto contours. Three ethnic immigrant groups are involved
in this process above all: Ukrainians, Vietnamese and Chinese.
7.1.6. Non-economic effects of migration
- Concerning immigration vis-à-vis cultural contributions, demographic changes,
changes in social structure, and the like in the Czech Republic, there is no nation-wide
influence by immigrants over these issues. However, on local or regional levels, there
has been some manifestation of a new and distinctive socio-cultural milieu that was
brought to the country by migrants.
109
7.1.7. Public opinion and perception of migrants and migration
The Czech population is rather xenophobic. However, this relationship is not “linear” in
its character. When comparing the beginning of the 1990s with the beginning of the
2000s, the overall perception of selected individual ethnic immigrant groups has
become more positive (except citizens of Balkan). Although the relationship is rather
complex, it also seems that the public’s perception of immigrants will improve given
time and increased, direct interactions between these immigrants and the public.
Although it is hard to prove such a hypothesis (see Drbohlav 2002), many of the experts
interviewed for this study asserted this argument (provided many examples on the local
level).
- While Slovaks, of the selected ethnic groups, are by far the most popular among the
Czech majority (followed by Poles, Vietnamese and citizens of the former Soviet
Union), citizens of the Balkans and especially Romas belong to the most unpopular
groups. On the whole, the popularity of individual ethnic groups vis-à-vis the Czech
population does not change too much over time.
- Prejudice against the Roma ethnic group is a persistently recurring attitude.
- Nevertheless, the manifestation of right wing extremism, associated mainly with young
people, has been limited to small groups and has not spread through the population in
a way that could destabilise public safety in any of the Czech regions.
7.1.8. Cooperation within individual ethnic immigrant groups
There is a sort of competition and even grudge inside some of the ethnic groups that
materializes itself in fairly bad relationships between their associations (“old”
communities, regardless of having citizenship of the Czech Republic, versus those who
“newly” immigrated).147 This trend is not specifically tied to one community, but might
have more general validity (see the examples of Ukrainians, Vietnamese and
Arabs/Kurds).
7.2. The most urgent matters and recommendations for improvement
7.2.1. Migration and integration policies and practices
The most important issue in this regard is that Czech legislation on international
migration almost fully corresponds to that proposed in the EU Directives (the Acquis).
Although migration policies and practices are still in an immature stage in the Czech
Republic, the state began to take a significantly more active stance on migration issues
in the late 1990s.148 Since then, approaches to migration policy have become more
systematic, comprehensive, and coherent.149 An important shift toward a more
multifaceted approach can be identified over time. Though the state has shown the
ability to handle the issue of migration and immigrants’ integration (see, for example,
Mainly interviewed experts contributed to releasing this fact
By the way, also a slight, nevertheless quite obvious, positive shift from rather “defensive interests”
(touching migrant “flows” above all) toward social and cultural aspects of migration (touching mainly
immigrant “stocks”) has been apparent
149
Some of the interviewed experts emphasized that in this regard the situation is better at the top of the
“state pyramid” than it is at the bottom
147
148
110
the state integration programme mainly for refugees, or the new programme for
recruiting an educated/skilled foreign labour force), its attempts to combat
illegal/irregular migration is rather unsuccessful.150 Furthermore, the results of this study
show that in several other spheres the Czech migration regime still suffers from
important weaknesses. Let us state the most important ones while also recommending
some possible remedies:
7.2.1.1. State bodies
- The basic principles stated in the state’s migration policy are too general and do not
present much of a „strategic vision.“ The relevant bodies should work out more
specific “guidelines,” but precede these actions with broad discussion and publication
of the issue.
State approaches toward migration and immigrants demonstrate many inconsistencies
(paradoxes; primarily - hypocrisy). The elimination of such inconsistencies will be
crucial in order for the state to be more effective in implementing its migratory goals.
1) Though there is an evident endeavor to prepare and to implement migratory policy
that would be closer to a “multicultural approach” than any other migratory regime some of the official documents explicitly speak about a multicultural approach and
policies -, the existing approaches toward managing the whole process sometimes do
not correspond with such goals. For example, there are various problems with
teaching the Czech language to foreigners and their children – what, how, and under
what conditions it should be taught – if taught at all; waiting periods that are too long
for immigrants to achieve a “safe” status; the requirement that immigrants
demonstrate ten years of continuous stay in the country before they can ask for a
permanent residence permit, and a fifteen year period – provided all demands are
met, to wait for the possibility of naturalization and to obtain Czech citizenship;
minimal opportunities for immigrants to participate in civic and political life, namely
the lack of voting rights on any level.
Other direct actions against “theoretical multiculturalism” occur when policemen and
representatives of other state institutions take fairly anti-immigrant approaches in their
duties. Officers and clerks often use the state’s discretionary power in a
disadvantageous way for immigrants. Internal procedural rules set by individual
ministries or state bodies may also play a role here. New legislation and new procedural
rules for treating migrants in a more human and tolerant manner must be launched and
practiced. In addition, officials on all levels of the state administration who deal with
immigrants should attend courses that could objectively inform them about a wide
spectrum of migration/immigration issues and related subjects.
2) Though, on one side, the country combats illegal/irregular migration/immigration, on
the other side, it also (in various ways and at different levels) either hides or even
officially supports it. For example, children of irregular immigrants can officially be
educated at basic schools, but prostitution among many irregular female migrants is
However, the Czech Republic is not alone in this regard – many other developed countries have similar
problems
150
111
more or less tolerated by Czech society. The state is not able and probably not willing
to severely punish and expel from the country those who seriously violate a law.
Furthermore, controlling employers who employ irregular immigrants is ineffective,
expelling those who are, by law, to leave the country is done very rarely; the
protection of the state border has significant gaps, and so on. Despite the fact that
these “discrepancies” probably cannot be completely solved,151 there might be ways
to improve the situation. A crucial task will be improving people’s willingness to
tackle these issues. Lastly, although important, greater financial sources are not
always the inevitable means to solving the problems.
3) A very liberal regime for issuing trade licenses does not correspond at all to the
„overcautious regime“ that is otherwise applied to foreigners in the territory of the
Czech Republic. The whole system of issuing trade licenses to foreigners has many
gaps. Consequently, it is very prone to frequent misuse.152 It has been proven that this
is the most advantageous way to legally penetrate the country and then legally or
quasi-legally work or operate there. Although problems linked with that approach
(regarding both the legislation and procedures) have been known for a long time,
there appears to be no political will to change the situation. Obviously, the law must
first be changed. Then the implementation of new rules must be applied in practice
(in the field).
- Public debate on migration is generally rather very limited. Thus, one of the most
important “pillars” and, correspondingly, practices of migration policy (public
perception/opinion) is neglected. The state should start to initiate the exchange of
information and opinions on migration among experts and the public more intensively.
Importantly, the public (of course, including children at schools) should be much
more objectively informed about international migration and integration issues, and
about all real and possible pros and cons that spring from current and future
developments in this field.
- The state is struggling with the decentralization of responsibilities and duties regarding
immigrants and their integration. Shifting some power toward newly established
regions and selected municipalities to delegated authorities within the districts poses
complex problems in the migratory field. The state should concentrate upon this issue
and solve it as soon as possible. The same concerns the shift of migratory
responsibilities and duties from the Ministry of the Interior to 1) other state bodies
mainly the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and to 2) the NGO sector. This process
takes time, nevertheless, it is well under way.
- Mutual cooperation among state bodies, NGOs, and international organizations, but
also within individual groups in the field of international migration issues is still far
from perfect153. It should be enhanced and improved. Also, local and regional
The reason is that whereas irregular immigration as a whole is detrimental to the state, in some ways
and to some extent it can also conform to state’s and individual’s interests (e.g. employers’ never-ending,
strong desire for a cheap illegal labour force in developed countries). Furthermore, there is a
moral/humanitarian dimension to the issue that often goes against many strict rules and regulations
152
To mention only one of many other examples: by establishing public trading and limited liability
companies within which foreign business persons now legally operate and function only as employees
153
To this point, interviewee No. 23 adds that GOs and NGOs are too interconnected and loyalty is required;
No. 25 calls for a sort of a mediator who could operate between these two subjects and to ease tensions
151
112
administrations and self-governments should be more involved in handling the issue.
It seems to be more a matter of the human side rather than any directives.
- Despite some recent improvements and a relatively good reputation in comparison
with many other CEE countries, international migration statistics could be better in the
Czech Republic. The problem lies in the existence of rather heterogeneous data
sources, in the really poor methodical treatment of some data (namely concerning
emigration of the domestic population from the country, migration motivations of
permanent immigrants or “structural characteristics” pertaining to, inter alia,
foreigners with work permits) and, last but not least, in the lack of willingness and even
ignorance among some regional and local Police bodies to cooperate in collecting and
recording some aspects of migration movements (see e.g. Zpráva 2003). As a result,
otherwise valuable data are almost worthless. New, innovative approaches should be
applied when collecting migration data, while, at the same time, trying to harmonise
them with the EU as much as possible. Lack of willingness and competence regarding
collecting important migratory data cannot be tolerated within the police any more.
- Though it is very difficult to prove, many of the interviewed experts (particularly, but
not exclusively, representatives of NGOs) indicated a very serious problem that
heavily burdens the whole field – the suspicion that there is corruption in the state
sector (mainly within the police – see also Mates 2003). Only immediate steps like
initiating investigations and implementing a very open policy in this regard (to keep
the public informed), establishing control mechanisms and carrying out heavy
punishments if guilt is proven may lead to improvements.
7.2.1.2. NGOs
- NGOs that function in the fields of migration and integration in the Czech Republic
should avoid holding grudges against each other. They are, more or less, in the same
position and their main goals (to help foreigners whatever status they have) are very
similar. More cooperation is needed (sharing responsibilities, exchanging experiences
and knowledge, creating a “stronger lobby” for negotiations with other bodies, etc).
- NGOs specializing in migration and integration issues should develop new and more
numerous contacts and relations with similar organisations abroad (mainly within the
EU) that are highly experienced.
- Since NGOs suffer from an enormous lack of financial sources in order to carry out
their specific goals and projects (state and international organizations in the Czech
Republic have been gradually withdrawing their financial support, or, similarly, the
decision as to whether or not to fund a project remains uncertain for an indefinite
period of time), NGOs have to learn quickly where and how to find potential sponsors
(from abroad) while successfully submitting reasonable, useful projects (the whole
issue of fund-raising). Their partial transformation from a “service” to “management”
is a must.
7.2.1.3. The EU and international organizations
Intensive cooperation between the EU and international organisations on one side, and
Czech state institutions/bodies and NGOs that work in the migration and integration
fields on the other side, should continue at many different levels and be further
strengthened. More official and unofficial contacts must be encouraged. Conferences,
113
workshops and round-tables in which participants could exchange experience and
receive knowledge from western colleagues would be highly welcomed. Possibilities for
Czech experts to spend several days/weeks/months in Western immigration societies
and to formulate their migration and integration policies and practices on site have
proven very useful and of great importance.
The EU (including international organisations), together with accession states, should
continue intensive cooperation in the migration field with other European countries that
have weaker economies and supply them with significant numbers of migrants. This cooperation should specifically address spreading objective information about existing
migration possibilities and opportunities to be employed in more developed worlds,
readmission, repatriation and reasonable, targeted attempts to improve living standards
at least partly, such as investing into human capital and economic infrastructure.
Political and economic isolation and building barriers in this regard would only
contribute to increasing migration pressure on more developed countries.
To summarize, it is quite clear that the main goals in improving the whole situation in
the migration field in the Czech Republic are to
1) prevent migrants from entering the country illegally;
2) to expel from the country those who have been identified as unwelcome;
3) to welcome those who stay legally for a short-time; and
4) to further assist immigrants who stay legally for a long time or “forever” in integrating
themselves into Czech society.
On a very general level, one can find a remedy in:
1) being more concerned about migration across all political and administrative
structures (and on all hierarchical levels);
2) being more cooperative (both internally and internationally);
3) being more competent and consistent (in “theory” but mainly “in practice”) and
stern; and
4) investing more in human capital and technical equipment.
Let us finish with three principles proclaimed by an Austrian colleague (a specialist in
public opinion issues) at one of the conferences in Vienna in 2003 and to apply them to
international migration policies in the broadest sense of the word : 1)”Do not say, there
are no problems, 2) design a clear, understandable, and constant attitude, and 3) do
good and talk about it!”
7.3. Future research
Research/scientific circles in the Czech Republic have so far been rather reserved in
addressing international migration and integration issues as the main target of their
studies. Since the very beginning of the 2000s, the situation has partly improved as a
result of the publication of a number of important studies. However, any other
reasonable investigation into these topics must be called for and appreciated. Whereas
114
there have been some studies done on rather general aspects of the immigration and
integration processes or on particular ethnic immigrant groups in the Czech Republic,
they were more descriptive and “superficial” than explanatory and analytical in their
character (e.g. see more in Drbohlav 2001). Also, very often they lacked a comparative
perspective and respected, more or less, only practical (highly pragmatic) goals.
Important links to “general regularities” (theories) were often omitted. Particularly
needed are complex, in-depth, sophisticated analyses tackling immigrants’ real and
potential impacts mainly upon geographical, political, juridical, economic, social,
demographic, cultural and psychological structures and substructures of the Czech
society. When implementing such investigations, one needs to research both individual
ethnic immigrant groups and specific immigrant categories (such as children, mothers,
handicapped people, seniors, representatives of particular occupations and the like) of
people migrating into or through the country. Of course, the topic of illegal/irregular
migration/immigration deserves special attention. Nevertheless, one should not forget
the other side of the coin. Research activities should also concentrate more on the
Czech majority population, especially their approaches to migration/immigrants and
the factors behind these.
115
8. References:
Aktuální stav řešení problematiky legálního zaměstnávání cizinců na území ČR k 30. 9.
2001. Internal material of the Ministry of Work and Social Affairs (Manuscript).
Altzinger, W.: How Labour Market Experiences of Migrants Differ: Australia and Austria
Compared, International Migration, Vol. 33, 1995, No. 1, pp. 55-91.
Baršová, A.: Občanství. In: Komparativní studie programu migrace; první verze: duben
2003. Výzkumný projekt. Praha, Poradna pro občanství/OSF Praha 2003, str. 52-69.
Bratsberg, B. / Terrell, D.: Where Do Americans Live Abroad? International Migration
Review, Vol. 30, 1996, No. 3, pp. 788-802.
Brettel, C. B. / Hollifield, J. F.: Migration Theory; Talking Across Disciplines. New York
and London, Routledge 2000.
Boušková, P.: Working Migration of Foreigners in the Czech Republic in 1970s – 1980s.
In: National Round Tables, On Community Relations; (19 February 1998, Prague),
Set of Documents. Prague, Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic 1998, pp.
34-46.
Burcin, B. / Kučera, T.: Předpokládaný populační vývoj České republiky v období do
roku 2050. In: Populační vývoj České republiky 1990-2002. Pavlík, Z., Kučera, M.
(eds.). Praha, Katedra demografie a geodemografie, Přírodovědecká fakulta,
Univerzita Karlova v Praze 2002, pp. 89-94.
Brouček, S.: Some Issues Concerning the Migration to the Czech Republic after the
Second World War. In: National Round Tables, On Community Relations (19
February 1998, Prague), Set of Documents. Prague, Ministry of the Interior of the
Czech Republic 1998, pp. 17-21.
Castles, S.: How Nation-States Respond to Immigration and Ethnic Diversity. New
Community, Vol 21, 1995, No. 3, pp. 293-308.
Chesnais, J.C.: By Way of Introduction. In: People on the Move; New Migration Flows in
Europe. Strasbourg, Council of Europe 1992, pp. 11-40.
Cizinci v České republice; Foreigners in the Czech Republic. Praha, Český statistický
úřad, Scientia, s.r.o. 2001.
Cizinci v České republice; Foreigners in the Czech Republic 2002. Praha, Český
statistický úřad, Scientia, s.r.o. 2002.
Čermák, Z. / Drbohlav, D. / Hampl, M. / Kučera, T.: Faktické obyvatelstvo Prahy. Praha,
Přírodovědecká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy 1995.
Čermáková, D.: Prostorové rozmístění cizinců v České republice a jeho podmíněnosti.
Magisterská práce. Praha, Přírodovědecká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze,
katedra sociální geografie a regionálního rozvoje 2002.
Čižinský, P. / Pořízek, P.: Předběžné návrhy nevládních organizací k problematice
integrace cizinců vyplývající ze setkání dne 26.5. v IOM Praha 2003. (Manuscript).
Čermáková, D. / Drbohlav, D.: Current Immigrants in the Czech Republic – Spatial
Patterns (Border Zone vis-à-vis Interior). A paper presented at an international
workshop “Transfrontier Migration in the CEE Countries: Problems and Experience
in Regulation”, December 12-15, 2002, Budapest. (Manuscript).
116
Černík, J.: Integrace Gruzínců v České republice. Výzkumná zpráva. Praha, Etnologický
ústav AV ČR.
ČR, Polsko, Maďarsko, Litva; Vztah k příslušníkům různých národních či národnostních
skupin. Institut pro výzkum veřejného mínění 2000.
Danielová, K.: Rasismus a xenofobie v České republice. Magisterská práce. Praha,
Přírodovědecká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze, katedra sociální geografie a
regionálního rozvoje 2002.
Dobiášová, K. / Čabanová, B. / Vyskočilová, O. / Kodadová, K.: Zdravotní péče a
pojištění. In: Komparativní studie programu migrace; první verze: duben 2003.
Výzkumný projekt. Praha, Poradna pro občanství/OSF Praha 2003, str. 21-31.
Drbohlav, D.: Czech Republic. In: EU and US Approaches to the Management of
Immigration. Niessen, J. / Schibel, Y. / Magoni, R. (eds.). Brussels, Migration Policy
Group, German Marshall Fund of the United States 2003 a).
Drbohlav, D.: Ethnicity, Family and International Migration. Studi Emigrazione –
forthcoming.
Drbohlav, D.: Imigranti v České republice (s důrazem na ukrajinské pracovníky a
„západní“ firmy operující v Praze). (Immigrants in the Czech Republic, with special
respect to Ukrainian workers and western firms, which operate in Prague)
Výzkumná zpráva. „Research Support Scheme“, Středoevropská univerzita 1997 a).
Drbohlav, D.: Immigration and the Czech Republic (with a Special Focus on the Foreign
Labor Force). International Migration Review, Vol. 37, 2003 b), No. 1, pp 194-224.
Drbohlav, D.: Integration of International Migrants and Refugees (The Czech Republic
Relative to Current Trends). In: 3rd International Symposium on the Protection of
Refugees in Central Europe, April 23-25, 1997, Budapest. Geneva, UNHCR 1997 b),
pp.139-172.
Drbohlav, D.: International Migration and the Czech Republic. In: Geography of Societal
Transformation in the Czech Republic. Hampl, M. (ed.), Praha, Department of
Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles
University 1999, pp. 223-242.
Drbohlav, D.: International Migration in the Czech Republic and Slovakia and the
Outlook for East Central Europe. Czech Sociological Review, Vol. 2, 1994, No. 1, pp.
89-106.
Drbohlav, D.: International Migration in the Czech Republic – Regional Aspects. In:
Regions – Self-Government – European Integration. Falťan, L. (ed.), Bratislava,
Institute of Sociology, Slovak Academy of Sciences 1995, pp. 137-151.
Drbohlav, D.: Migratory Trends in the Czech Republic: “Divergence or Convergence”
vis-à-vis the Developed World? Migracijske i etničke teme, Vol. 18, 2002, No. 2-3, pp.
167-176.
Drbohlav, D.: The Past, The Present, and the Probable Future of International Migration
in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary (with Special respect to the
Czech Republic and Slovakia). Background Study; Research Project: East Central
Europe 2000: the Czech Republic. Praha, The Institute of Sociology, Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic 1993.
Drbohlav, D.: Selected Research Activities in the Field of International Migration and
Integration of Immigrants in the Czech Republic. In: Demographic and Cultural
Specificity and Integration of Migrants; 1st Workshop organised by the Federal
117
Institute for Population Research in co-operation with the Network for Integrated
European Population Studies (NIEPS), 10-11 November 2000. Wiesbaden,
Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung beim Statistischen Bundesamt 2001, pp.
155-166.
Drbohlav, D. / Lupták, M. / Janská, E. / Šelepová, P.: Ukrajinská komunita v České
republice. Výzkumná zpráva grantu MV, U-2116/99. (Research report for the Czech
Ministry of the Interior). Praha: Přírodovědecká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy 1999.
Drbohlav, D. / Janská, E. / Šelepová, P.: Ukrajinská republika v České republice. In:
menšiny a migranti v České republice; My a oni v multikulturní společnosti 21.
století. Šišková, T. (ed.), Praha, Portál 2001, str. 89-98.
Drbohlav, D. / Sýkora, L.: Gateway-Cities in the Process of Regional Integration in Central
and Eastern Europe: The Case of Prague. In: Migration, Free Trade and Regional
Integration in Central and Eastern Europe. G. Biffl (ed.), Vienna, OECD, WIFO,
Österreichische Staatsdruckerei 1997, pp. 215-237.
Dzúrová, D. / Rychtaříková, J. / Drbohlav, D.: Projekt Československo ve 21. století; část
Obyvatelstvo ČSFR. (Výzkumná zpráva). Praha, Univerzita Karlova, fakulta
přírodovědecká 1992.
Fassmann, H. / Münz, R.: European East-West Migration, 1945-1992. In: The Cambridge
Survey of World Migration. Cohen, R. (ed.), Cambridge, The University Press,
Cambridge 1995, pp. 470-485.
Futurologové o krajanech. Svět Čechů a Slováků / Svet Čechov a Slovákov, 1991, č. 1, str. 17.
Gabal, I.: Etnické klima české společnosti – výsledky sociologického výzkumu. Praha,
Podklady pro seminář UNHCR.
Garson, J. P. / Redor, D. / Lemaitre, G.: Gateway-Cities in the Process of Regional
Integration in Central and Eastern Europe: The Case of Prague. In: Migration, Free
Trade and Regional Integration in Central and Eastern Europe. G. Biffl (ed.),
Vienna, OECD, WIFO, Österreichische Staatsdruckerei 1997, pp. 299-335.
Gieseck, A. / Heilemann, U. / von Loeffelholz, H. D.: Economic Implications of Migration
into the Federal Republic of Germany. International Migration Review, Vol. 29, 1995,
No. 3, pp. 693-709.
Gladišová, L.: Research on Unaccompanied Minors in Central Europe; Country Report,
Czech Republic. IOM Prague 2003.
Haišman, T.: Cizinci a my. Materiál ke kurzu “Menšiny, cizinci, uprchlíci v kontextu
místní správy ČR” (projekt PHARE); 1. 2. - 3. 2. 2001. Vzdělávací centrum pro
veřejnou správu ČR, o.p.s. 2001.
Häufler, V.: Ekonomická geografie Československa. Praha, Academia 1984.
Hintermann, Ch.: The Austrians and their Foreign Population – Two surveys Concerning
Attitudes and Opinions of the Austrian Population in Respect to International
Migration, Foreign Population and Migration and Integration Policy in Austria. In:
Demographic and Cultural Specificity and Integration of Migrants; 1st Workshop
organised by the Federal Institute for Population Research in co-operation with the
Network for Integrated European Population Studies (NIEPS), 10-11 November
2000. Wiesbaden, Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung beim Statistischen
Bundesamt 2001, pp. 195-204.
Horáková, M.: Mezinárodní pracovní migrace v ČR; Bulletin č. 1. Praha: Výzkumný ústav
práce a sociálních věcí 1998.
118
Horáková, M.: Pilot Study on Short-Term Labour Migration from the Czech Republic to
the Federal Republic of Germany. Berlin 1993.
Horáková, M.: Work-stays of Czech Nationals in Germany. Working Paper No. 4. Prague:
Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs 1996.
Horáková, M. / Drbohlav, D.: Mezinárodní migrace pracovních sil a Česká republika se
zvláštním zaměřením na pracovní migraci Ukrajinců. Demografie, roč. 40, 1998, č.
1, str. 27-38.
Horáková, M. / Macounová, I.: Mezinárodní migrace v ČR. Bulletin č. 8. Praha,
Výzkumný ústav práce a sociálních věcí 2002.
Horáková, M. / Macounová, I.: Mezinárodní migrace v ČR. Bulletin č. 10. Praha,
Výzkumný ústav práce a sociálních věcí 2003.
Hönekopp, E.: Labour Migration to Germany from Central and Eastern Europe - Old and
New Trends. (IAB labour market research topics 23). Nuremberg: Institute for
Employment Research 1997.
Hronková, M. / Hradečná, P.: Vzdělání. In: Komparativní studie programu migrace;
první verze: duben 2003. Výzkumný projekt. Praha, Poradna pro občanství/OSF
Praha 2003, str. 15-20.
Informace o plnění Plánu integrační politiky MŠMT a aktualizace Akčního plánu MŠMT
pro rok 2003. Materiál pro informaci porady vedení ministerstva školství, mládeže
a tělovýchovy. Praha, Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy 2002.
Internal materials of the Ministry of Work and Social Affairs. Praha, Ministerstvo práce
a sociálních věcí 2001.
Janská, E. / Drbohlav, D.: Re-emigration and Integration of Volhynian and “Chernobyl”
Czechs in the Czech Republic. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica –
forthcoming.
Kaplan, D. H. / Holloway, S. R.: Segregation in Cities. Washington D.C., Association of
American Geographers 1998.
K národnostní a rasové nesnášenlivosti. Praha, Sociologický ústav AV ČR. Centrum pro
výzkum veřejného mínění 2001.
Krätke, S.: The Regional Impact of EU Eastern Enlargement. In: Recent Advances in
Urban and Regional Studies. Domanski, R. (ed.), Warsaw, Polish Academy of
Sciences 2003, pp. 61-79.
Kroupa, A. / Horáková, M. - Šmolcnop, V. - Nesvadbová, L. - Rudolf, V. - Štěpánek, I.
Nelegální zaměstnávání a podnikání cizinců na českém trhu práce. Praha:
Výzkumný ústav práce a sociálních věcí 1997.
Křečková-Tůmová, N. / Dobiášová, K. / Šebek, P. / Nesvadbová, L. / Háva, P.: Potřeba a
spotřeba zdravotní péče Ukrajinci žijícími dlouhodobě nebo trvale v ČR.
Výzkumná zpráva. Kostelec nad Černými lesy. Institut zdravotní politiky a
ekonomiky 2003.
Kučera, M.: Populace České republiky 1918 – 1991. Česká demografická splečnost,
Sociologický ústav AV ČR 1994.
Lidové noviny, pondělí 26. května 2003, str. 2.
Lupták, M. / Drbohlav, D.: Labour Migration and Democratic Institutions in the Czech
Republic: The Example of Ukrainian Workers. Research report within „Democratic
Institutions Fellowship“ (NATO) 1999.
119
Lutz, W.: Will Europe Be Short of Children? Family Observer. Luxemburg, European
Communities 1999.
Malinovskaja, E. A.: Prigraničnaja migracija naselenija Ukrainy v světě rasširenija EC.
Paper presented at international workshop: “Transfrontier Migration in the CEE
Countries: Problems and Experience in Regulation”, organised by Dialogue
International Association (Hungary), Center for the Study of Forced Migration in
the NIS Countries and Baltic States (Russia) and Open Society Institute, East-East
Program (Hungary), 13-14 December 2002, Budapest (Manuscript).
Marešová, J.: Czech Republic - 1999 SOPEMI Report. Praha 1999. (Manuscript).
Marešová, J.: Vybrané aspekty mezinárodní migrace v souvislosti s jejími dopady na čs.
pracovní trh (úvodní studie) - Projekt XIV/9. Praha, Výzkumný ústav práce a
sociálních věcí Bratislava, pobočka Praha 1991. 25 pp.
Marešová, J. / Drbohlav, D. / Lhotská, V.: Migration-Europe’s Integration and the BrainDrain from the Labour Force; Report on the Czech Republic. Prague: Department
of Social Geography and Regional Development, Charles University in Prague 1996.
Martin, P. L. / Taylor, J. E.: Guest Worker Programs and Policies. Washington, The Urban
Institute 1995.
Massey, D. S. / Arango, J. / Hugo, G. / Kouaouci, A. / Pellegrino, A. / Taylor, J. E.: Worlds
in Motion; Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium.
New York: Oxford University Press Inc 1998.
Mates, J.: Číňani musejí pryč! Týden roč. 10, č. 018, 28. 4. 2003, str. 28.
Meduna, M.: Sociální zabezpečení. In: Komparativní studie programu migrace; první
verze: duben 2003. Výzkumný projekt. Praha, Poradna pro občanství/OSF Praha
2003, str. 32-37.
Migration Module, Analysis Grid for: The Czech Republic. “Phare Horizontal
Programme
Migration, Visa and External Bordor Control Management”. April 2002. The EU, the
Danish Immigration Service, the IOM.
Mošňjaga, V.: Trudovaja migracija v respublike Moldova: Osnovnyje tendencii i objomy.
In: Moldova, Romania, Ucraina: Inegrarea Europeana Si Migratiunea Fortei De
Munca. Chisinau, Captes 2000, str. 113-128.
Náš vztah k jiným národnostem. Praha, Sociologický ústav AV ČR, Centrum pro výzkum
veřejného mínění 2003.
Návrh nové koncepce integrace azylantů s účinností od 1. ledna 2003. Praha, Vláda
České republiky 2003.
Názory české veřejnosti na uprchlíky (2001-2002). Výzkumná zpráva. Praha, STEM –
Středisko empirických výzkumů 2003.
Nedomová, A. / Kostelecký, T.: The Czech National Identity. Czech Sociological Review,
Vol. 5, 1997, No. 1, pp. 79-92.
Novák, P.: Přehled současné situace nezletilých žadatelů o azyl bez doprovodu v České
republice 2003. (Manuscript).
Občané k výzkumům veřejného mínění. Praha, Sociologický ústav AV ČR, Centrum pro
výzkum veřejného mínění 2001.
120
Občané k výzkumům veřejného mínění. Praha, Český statistický úřad, Institut pro
výzkum veřejného mínění 2000.
Obuchová, L.: Čínská komunita v České republice 2001. Výzkumná zpráva. Praha,
Orientální ústav AV ČR 2002.
O názorech na možnost azylu v ČR. Praha, Sociologický ústav AV ČR, Centrum pro
výzkum veřejného mínění 2001.
O vztahu k cizincům pracujícím a žijícím u nás. Praha, Sociologický ústav AV ČR,
Centrum pro výzkum veřejného mínění 2001.
The Pilot Project of the Active Selection of Qualified Foreign Workers. The Government
Resolution No. 720 of July 10, 2002. (Presentation Report).
Pohyb obyvatelstva ČR. Praha, Český statistický úřad 1998-2002.
Populační vývoj České republiky, 1990-2002. Praha, Katedra demografie a
geodemografie, Přírodovědecká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze 2002.
Postoje občanů k problematice uprchlíků II. Praha, Sociologický ústav AV ČR, Centrum
pro výzkum veřejného mínění 2001.
Rabušic, L. / Burjánek, A.: Imigrační politika jako prvek řešení české demografické
situace? Praha, Výzkumný ústav práce a sociálních věcí. V tisku.
Rahman, M. M.: Emigration and Development: The Case of a Bangladeshi Village,
International Migration, Vol. 38, 2000, No. 4, pp. 109-130.
Replacement Migration; Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? New York,
United Nations 2001.
Ročenka HN 98, 99. Praha: Hospodářské noviny 1989 a 1999.
Salt, J.: Trafficking and Human Smuggling: A European Perspective. International
Migration, Vol. 33, 2000, No. 3, pp. 31-55.
Seidlová, M.: Etnické složení Česka. Bakalářská práce. Praha, Přírodovědecká fakulta
Univerzity Karlovy v Praze, katedra sociální geografie a regionálního rozvoje 2003.
Sledování a hodnocení průběhu vzdělávání cizinců na území ČR v základních,
středních a vyšších odborných školách. Zpráva o výsledcích tematické inspekce.
Praha, Česká školní inspekce 2002.
Srb, V.: Demografické úbytky Československa 1948-1990 v důsledku "ilegalních odchodů
z republiky". Statistika, 1990, pp. 171-172.
Stav a pohyb obyvatelstva v ČR v roce 2002; předběžné výsledky. Praha, Český
statistický úřad 2003.
Stěhování v Československu v číslech. Praha, TERPLAN 1995.
Šelepová, P.: Zahraniční pracovní migrace v České republice. Magisterská práce. Praha,
Přírodovědecká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze, katedra sociální geografie a
regionálního rozvoje 1998.
Uherek, Z.: Cizinecké komunity a městský prostor v České republice. Sociologický
časopis/Czech Sociological Review, Vol. 39, 2003, No. 2, pp. 193-216.
Uhl, P.: Politická a zájmová participace a sdružování v odborových organizacích. In:
Komparativní studie programu migrace; první verze: duben 2003. Výzkumný
projekt. Praha, Poradna pro občanství/OSF Praha 2003, str. 44-51.
121
Uhlíř, D.: Mezinarodní migrace v Evropě se zvláštním zřetelem k migraci Východ-Západ.
Sborník České geografické společnosti, roč. 98, 1993, č. 3, str. 145-155.
Transit Migration in the Czech Republic. Budapest: International Organization for
Migration 1994.
Veřejné mínění k zaměstnávání cizinců v ČR, únor 1999. Praha: Institut pro výzkum
veřejného mínění 1999.
Wallace, C. / Chmuliar, O. / Sidorenko, E.: The Eastern Frontier of Western Europe:
Mobility in the Buffer Zone, New Community, Vol. 22, 1996, No. 2, pp. 259-286.
Wallace, C.: Xenophobia in Transition: Austria and Eastern Europe Compared. Vienna,
Institute of Advanced Studies 1999.
Wang, X.: Chinese Enterprises in Prague: The Formation of an Ethnic Economic Niche.
A research report worked out within Dartmouth College Foreign Programme at
Charles University in Prague. Prague 1998.
Widgren, J.: A Comparative Analysis of Entry and Asylum Policies in Selected Western
Countries. Vienna, International Centre for Migration Policy Development 1994.
Wohlgemuth, M.: Hodnotící zpráva o připravenosti České republiky k ratifikaci
Protokolu o prevenci, potlačování a trestání obchodování s lidmi, zejména se
ženami a dětmi, doplňující Úmluvu Organizace spojených národů proti
nadnárodnímu organizovanému zločinu. Praha, Ministerstvo vnitra ČR, odbor
bezpečnostní politiky; zpráva pro Spojené národy 2003.
Zaměstnanost a nezaměstnanost v ČR podle výsledků výběrového šetření pracovních
sil; 4. čtvrtletí (říjen - prosinec) 1998. Praha: ČSÚ 1999.
Zpráva o situaci národnostních menšin v České republice za rok 2001. Praha, úřad
vlády České republiky, Rada vlády pro národnostní menšiny 2002 a).
Zpráva o situaci v oblasti migrace na území České republiky za rok 2001. Praha,
Ministerstvo vnitra ČR 2002 b).
Zpráva o situaci v oblasti migrace na území České republiky za rok 2002. Praha,
Ministerstvo vnitra ČR 2003.
Žadatelé o přiznání postavení uprchlíka, osoby s přiznaným postavením uprchlíka a
osoby v dočasném útočišti v České republice. Praha, Ministerstvo vnitra ČR 1997.
Some other internal materials of various state bodies were used, too.
122
APPENDIX I: Foreign children and their integration in Czech
schools and Czech society
So far, very little is known about foreign children attending schools (basic and high
schools154) in the Czech Republic and the level of their integration (including pluses and
minuses155) in the Czech majority society.156 This study involves both quantitative and
qualitative sorts of data. Although the state, through the Czech School Inspection, has
been collecting “hard” data on some of the basic parameters since the 2001/2002
academic year (data on children such as ethnic background by a language and a
citizenship, age, sex and “stay” status – whether an asylum seeker, a refugee, a
successful asylum seeker, a holder of permanent residence status, or a holder of a visa
for a period exceeding 90 days, the type of school, its location and results of the
educational process, etc. - see also table A below), there is a gap in terms of
understanding more detailed “qualitative” aspects of children’s integration processes.
The main goal of this chapter is to explain the current situation in the given field and
what problems have appeared. It is based on 5 interviews with selected experts and on
several documents (Sledování 2002; Informace 2002) that indicate problems and,
consequently, possible ways to improve or solve them. Regardless, it is quite clear that
in the near future there is wide room for research/scientific activities to contribute to
the analysis of this presently unrecognised area.
(As interviewee No. 19 adds to this point while supporting the research: “It is clear that
there are differences among individual ethnic groups, among those who live in ethnic
enclaves and those who live outside them, and among different generations – children and
their parents …”; “The question whether foreign children keep their identity or whether
they are pretty well integrated/assimilated is also worth researching”). Also No. 22
contributes to this point: “What is not well-known is what the differences are among
individual ethnic groups, what specific problems are tied to individual regions and cities,
and what particular problems bother immigrants and their children immediately after their
arrival in the Czech Republic”.
The Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport is the main body responsible for educating
foreign children (see the Plan of the Ministry’s Integration Policy – Informace 2002; it
was designed in July 2001 in accordance with the whole Conception of immigrants’
integration in the Czech Republic – No. 18 809/01-22). Within the Plan, attention is paid
particularly to the following aspects:
- Teaching Czech as a second language, including courses for those who have asylum in
the country.
There have been relatively a lot of pieces of information about foreign university students in the Czech
Republic (see e.g. Cizinci 2002)
155
Interviewee No. 19 states to this point: “There is no question that integrated children are an asset for
the society – in terms of the multicultural dimension and also for pragmatic reasons – they create material
and non-material commodities. There is no doubt that investing in the successful integration of foreigners
– into such human capital - is a good investment”
156
In fact, foreigners have the possibility to be educated under the same conditions as citizens of the
Czech Republic. The mode of placing a foreigner into a particular regular school/class is directed by
regulation No. 21836/2000 – 11 (it deals with a student‘s knowledge of Czech and the whole quality of
his/her educational level). For example, directors at high schools have quite a lot of room in various
programmes to positively influence children’s integration
154
123
- Post and pre-graduate education of teachers in the sphere of foreigners’ integration.
- Creating complex conditions for the actualization of multicultural education among the
whole Czech population.
- Improving regulations and economic and organisational conditions for foreigners’
education.
- Monitoring the situation in the sphere of foreigners’ education at basic and high
schools, as well as at higher specialized schools and universities.
- Collecting necessary data via a functional information system that would provide an
overview of foreign pupils and foreign students by citizenship, mother language, and
type of stay.
- Coordinating pedagogical research, supporting the creation of nation-wide and
regional programmes, and preparing new textbooks, methodological materials, and
special educational tools for teaching foreigners (Plán 2002).
In sum, a rather complex approach has been designed.
Let us elaborate on the first point: courses for those who have been granted asylum in
the country fall under regulation No. 21 153/2000-35. In accordance with the Asylum Act,
these refugees are provided Czech language courses free of charge. These classes are
offered to a refugee within 30 days after he has been granted asylum. They are paid for
by the state and recent numbers have oscillated between 80 and 120 per year. In
practice, since 2002 the course has been organised by the NGO, “The Society of Citizens
Assisting Migrants.” As a matter of fact, it represents altogether 150 hours per group and
100 hours for individuals. Though the courses have been offered to everybody, by far
not all of those who are supposed to take them actually attend them. There are several
reasons for this: they move to another centre, they rent an apartment, they get a job, or
they find an apartment to live in somewhere else.
Obligatory education for foreign children – of those who still wait for a decision or those
who have been granted asylum – is governed by international conventions signed by
the state. The Ministry designs internal conditions. Children of those foreigners who ask
for asylum usually attend „normal schools for Czech citizens“ situated close to their
asylum centres. There are several problems, mainly springing from very limited
knowledge of the Czech language and a different socio-cultural background. There was
a new methodological regulation adopted (No. 10 149/2002-22) on how to improve the
situation. Teachers in these schools have to regularly solve problems connected to:
inadequate knowledge of Czech, children breaking rules, absences, habits and customs
that do not fit with the Czech culture, and variable school attendance – frequent in-and
out-migration during the academic year and some other problems. These children are
often not interested in learning and their parents frequently do not cooperate with the
given school. Czech parents complain that the education of Czech children suffers from
larger numbers of children in class (due to the inflow of foreigners). Thus, the sensitive
relationship between the majority population and asylum seekers comes into play. The
priority is to make teaching and learning easier by reducing class size. Hence, it is
possible to divide some of the classes. However, such schools do not have enough
financial sources (more textbooks are necessary – some of them are lost by immigrants
and there is great demand for new technical equipment).
124
To summarize, despite some serious problems, the main goal has been fulfilled.
Foreigners who attend regular schools usually nearby their permanent or temporary
place of living are another case. The situation was monitored by the Czech School
Inspection of 2001/2002. These studies were conducted in 1,012 basic, high, and higher
specialized schools and they revealed that 21% of students were educated foreigners,
among which Ukrainians, Slovaks, and Vietnamese dominated; 54% came from the
former Soviet Union, the smallest numbers of foreigners were in grades 8 and 9; 47%
were in Prague, the lowest percentages were in the Vysočina region – 0.5%, and in other
regions the share was between 2% and 7%. The numbers did not change much
compared to the 2000/2001 academic year. Most of these children had lived in the
country for a long time, and their knowledge of Czech was acceptable and there were
no significant shortcomings in their educational level or serious problems in learning
and teaching. However, there were problems regarding foreigners who had been in the
country for only a short time. In these cases, an individual approach was necessary,
and teachers found that children’s involvement in out-school activities helped, as well
as working in pairs with a Czech pupil. (Interviewees No. 20 and 27 stress that applying
an individual approach to students, regardless of ethnicity/citizenship, is crucial and
should always be used.) There were some other methods applied, too (see Sledování
2002): The longer in the country, the fewer the problems at school.
As mentioned, two different situations exist for asylum seekers and their children and
for families who do not choose the Czech Republic as their destination country (see the
aforementioned problems).
Based on the experinces and opinions of the interviewed experts (interviews No. 19, 20,
21, 22, 27) – one can formulate the following propositions, which are worth stressing:
1) Except for asylum seekers (see above), the state (the Czech Republic) is not obliged
to take care of improving the Czech language of its pupils.
2) The group with the most problems among immigrants in the country are asylum
seekers (including their children). Otherwise, if one generalises, foreign children
have rather good or excellent results in school. (According to No. 20 - diplomats
represent a specific, rather isolated group.)
3) Knowledge of the Czech language is a key issue when integrating into the Czech host
society.
4) The period that is the most complicated and in which children have the most
problems are the first months after entering the country and starting education.
5) There are some differences in how successful individual ethnic immigrant
communities are at learning Czech and, consequently, integrating in the Czech
society. (Asian groups, particularly the Vietnamese, belong to the most successful).
Some other differences by basic sociodemographic characteristics were indicated
(e.g. in relation to children themselves - a gender dimension; in relation to children’s
parents – educational level or professional position). However, as interviewee No. 21
mentions, among the Vietnamese, a community is not homogeneous and “it is
composed of several subgroups (especially due to competition based on business
interests).”
125
6) There were indications that the level of knowledge of the Czech language and the
level of integration may be conditioned by some other factors, such as the
openness/closeness of a community and its possible support, adhering to one’s
cultural heritage, the geographical position of the immigrants’ country of origin,
former experiences in the Czech environment, future plans, the attitude and interest
of “VIPs” on both sides - within the ethnic community and within the school (the
director).
7) There are no “standardized” tests through which the state can (comparatively)
measure how successful its pupils (including foreigners) are.
8) There was no evidence of racism and xenophobia experienced and directed against
foreign children at schools in the Czech Republic.
9) Regarding the „foreign children issue,“ no nation-wide sophisticated programmes
were run by the state.157
To summarize, the whole issue of foreign children and their integration in Czech host
society is worth looking into. Despite, not having any serious problems thus far and
having some basic „hard“ data, there are still important questions that await answers,
and there are problems one should tackle. The most important is to adhere to a
complex approach – to work not only with individual children, but also with whole
families. Such research is a challenging task, but the results could help both the
immigrants and the state. However, fulfilling such a task is another story indeed.
Table A. Foreign children at basic and high schools in the Czech Republic, selected
characteristics, academic year 2002/2003
Foreign children / type of school
Foreigners (F) – Total
(F) from EU
(F) from other European countries
(F) from other countries and not available data
(F) from Slovakia
(F) from Russia
(F) from Ukraine
(F) from Vietnam
Basic Schools
10,406
243
5,984
4,179
1,268
1,005
2,467
2,763
High Schools
2,938
164
2,027
747
396
494
630
366
Source: Internal materials of the Institute for Information in Education
Note: Out of 10,406 foreign children who attended basic schools, 5,563 were holders of
permanent residence permits, 4,497 were issued temporary visas, and 442 had been granted
asylum.
Out of 2,938 foreign children who attended high schools, 1,882 were holders of permanent
residence permits, 1,006 of temporary visas and 50 were those who got asylum.
At the same time, 3,083 foreign children attended kindergardens.
157
There is “only” the programme GO that is to generally support integration in a class/school groups
(interviewee No. 20). It is based on courses on three topics - adaptation to a new study environment,
addiction and sex
126
APPENDIX II: List of interviewed experts – their employer or
position - with their identification numbers
No. 1:
No. 2:
No. 3:
No. 4:
No. 5:
No. 6:
No. 7:
No. 8:
No. 9:
No. 10:
No. 11:
No. 12:
No. 13:
No. 14:
No. 15:
No. 16:
No. 17:
No. 18:
No. 19:
No. 20:
No. 21:
No. 22:
No. 23:
No. 24:
No. 25:
No. 26:
No. 27:
No. 28:
No. 29:
No. 30:
The Ministry of Industry and Trade
The Ministry of the Interior, Department for Asylum and Migration Policy
The Ministry of the Interior, Department for Asylum and Migration Policy
The Ministry of the Interior, Department for Asylum and Migration Policy
The Ministry of the Interior, Department of Security Policy
The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
Expert (diplomatic service)
The Ministry of the Interior, Directorate of the Alien and Border Police
The Czech Catholic Charity
The Counceling Centre for Integration
The Counceling Centre for Refugees
The Organization for Aid to Refugees
The Association of Chinese Living in the Czech Republic
UNHCR Praha
The People in Need Foundation
IOM Praha
IOM Praha
The Word 21
The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
Jan Kepler High School, Praha
Basic School Meteorologická 181, Praha
The Czech School Inspection
The Multicultural centre
IOM Praha
Researcher (ethnologist)
The People in Need Foundation
Jan Kepler High School and Truhlarska High School, Praha
Researcher, representative of Ukrainian community in Czech Republic
The Ukrainian Initiative
Assistant for street children in Prague (streetwork project Šance)
127
APPENDIX III: Maps and Graphs
Map 1. Former administrative divisions of the Czech Republic;
Districts - only bodies of state administration
128
Map 2. Contemporary administrative divisions of the Czech Republic
(as of 1 January 2000); New self-governing units with delegated
tasks of state administration
129
Graph 1. For important details and explanatory notes please see the text
and respective tables.
Graph 2. Registered "permanent migration" in the Czech Republic,
1997–2002 (flow)
130
Graph 3. Foreigners with permanent residence permits and long-term
residence permits/visas for a period exceeding 90 days,
the Czech Repubic, 1997–2002 (stock)
Graph 4. Foreigners asking for asylum in the Czech Republic,
1997–2002 (flow)
Graph 5. Persons caught when illegally trying to cross a state border of
the Czech Republic, 1997–2002
131
Graph 6. Foreigners with permanent residence permits by individual
important source countries, the Czech Republic, 1997–2002 (stock)
Graph 7. Foreigners with long-term residence permits and visas for a
period exceeding 90 days by individual important source
countries, the Czech Republic, 1997–2002 (stock)
Graph 8. Foreigners asking for asylum in the Czech Republic by
individual important source countries, 1997–2002
132
Graph 9. Foreigners caught when trying to illegally cross a state border of
the Czech Republic by important source countries, 1997–2002
Graph 10. Main types of economic immigration (foreigners - holders
of work permits, job licenses and Slovaks registered by job
centres) in the Czech Republic, 1997–2002 (stock)
133
Graph 11. Foreigners in the Czech Republic by purpose of their
stay/residence (international taxonomy, those with length
of residence over 1 year), 2000–2001
Graph 12. Foreigners with permanent residence permits and visas
exceeding 90 days (those with lenght of residence longer than
1 year) by individual important source countries,
the Czech Republic, 2001
134
Graph 13. Foreigners - holders of valid work permits by individual
important source countries, type of a permit, 2001 (stock)
Graph 14. Age structure: the Czech population versus foreigners
135
Graph 15. Foreigners with long-term residence permits and visas for a
perior exceeding 90 days (those with lenght of residence longer
than 1 year) by individual important source countries and by
selected age groups, the Czech Republic, 2001 (stock)
Graph 16. Foreigners who have been granted asylum and had it valid as of
December 31, 2001, by the most important source countries and
by age and gender (stock)
Graph 17. Share of Prague of the whole Czech Republic - individual
selected immigration statuses, 1997–2002 (stock)
136
Graph 18. Asylum seekers and "quasi-asylum seekers" in the Czech
Republic, 1997–2002 (flows)
Graph 19. Good attitude towards selected ethnicities - population of the
Czech Republic, 1993–2001, in %
Accession to the EU is expected to bring about changes in migratory routes
and destinations, as well as societal changes in the future EU member states.
How do new migration trends affect the local societies of these countries?
How is the integration of migrants possible in societies marked mostly by
emigration throughout the 1990ies? Which approaches do governments
envisage in the different countries? Are they becoming countries of
immigration – what can be expected after May 2004?
This booklet is part of a product of comprehensive research and analysis
of migration trends in each of six participating EU accession countries.
The research project has been supported by the European Commission,
DG Employment and Social Affairs, under the European Social Fund budget
line “Analysis of and research on the social situation, demography and
the family” and has been managed by IOM Vienna.
Under the title “Migration Trends in Selected Applicant Countries”, the
following volumes are available:
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
I – Bulgaria: The Social Impact of Seasonal Migration.
II – The Czech Republic: The Times They Are A-Changin.
III – Poland: Dilemmas of a Sending and Receiving Country.
IV – Romania: More ‘Out’ than ‘In’ at the Crossroads between
Europe and the Balkans.
Volume V – Slovakia: An Acceleration of Challenges for Society.
Volume VI – Slovenia: The perspective of a Country on the ‘Schengen
Periphery’.
Migration Trends
in
Selected Applicant Countries
Migration Trends
Sharing Experience…
Volume II – The Czech Republic
cover CZ qx II 15/1/04 12:26 Page 1
Volume II – The Czech Republic
The Times They Are A-Changin
IOM
The reader may expect comprehensive information on the situation of
migrants both, in and out of the countries, and the countries’ migration
management approaches, with the main purpose to illustrate the impact of
migration trends on the local society and the social situation in the country.